At Tue, 7 Mar 2023 16:18:21 +0900, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote in > On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 03:49:02PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > Ah. Yes, that expansion sounds sensible. > > Okay, so, based on this idea, I have hacked on this stuff and finish > with the attached that shows block data if it exists, as well as FPI > stuff if any. bimg_info is showed as a text[] for its flags.
# The naming convetion looks inconsistent between # pg_get_wal_records_info and pg_get_wal_block_info but it's not an # issue of this patch.. > I guess that I'd better add a test that shows correctly a record with > some block data attached to it, on top of the existing one for FPIs.. > Any suggestions? Perhaps just a heap/heap2 record? > > Thoughts? I thought that we needed a test for block data when I saw the patch. I don't have great idea but a single insert should work. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
