Markus Wanner <mar...@bluegap.ch> writes:
> I stumbled across a minor issue in xlog.c:1030: the WAL_DEBUG code block
> there passes rdata->data to the rm_desc() methode. However, that's only
> the first XLogRecData struct, not the entire XLog record. So the
> rm_desc() method effectively reports spurious data for any subsequent part.
The original design intention was that rm_desc should not attempt to
print any such data, but obviously some folks didn't get the word.
The question is whether we're willing to add a lot of cycles to
XLOG_DEBUG mode in order to make the full record available for printing
purposes. Not sure if it's a good tradeoff or not.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
