On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Wouldn't the definition of a new redo action make sense then? Say >> SKIPPED. None of the existing actions match the non-apply case. > > I just took 5 minutes to look at the code and reason about it, and > something like what your patch is doing would be actually fine. Still > I don't think that checking for the apply flag in the macro routine > should look for has_image. Let's keep things separate. Actually, I just verified that bimg_info is not even valid if has_image is not set. In DecodeXLogRecord, we initialize bimg_info only when has_image flag is set. So, keeping them separate doesn't look a good approach to me. If we keep them separate, the output of the following assert is undefined: Assert(XLogRecHasBlockImage(record, block_id) || !XLogRecBlockImageApply(record, block_id)).
Thoughts?? -- Thanks & Regards, Kuntal Ghosh EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
