On 12 September 2014 13:16, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Heikki Linnakangas > <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: >> I haven't looked at those places closely, but it seems possible that at >> least some of those variables are supposed to be initialized to a value >> smaller than any valid WAL position, rather than just Invalid. In other >> words, if we defined InvalidXLogRecPtr as INT64_MAX rather than 0, we would >> still want those variables to be initialized to zero. As I said, I didn't >> check the code, but before we change those that ought to be checked. > > Ah, OK. I just had a look at that, and receivedUpto and lastComplaint > in xlog.c need to use the lowest pointer value possible as they do a > couple of comparisons with other positions. This is as well the case > of sentPtr in walsender.c. However, that's not the case of writePtr > and flushPtr in walreceiver.c as those positions are just used for > direct comparison with LogstreamResult, so we could use > InvalidXLogRecPtr in this case.
I don't see this patch gives us anything. All it will do is prevent easy backpatching of related fixes. -1 for changing the code in this kind of way I find it confusing that the "Lowest" pointer value is also "Invalid". Valid != Invalid -1 for this patch -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
