Horton

Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgbf@twiska.com, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2020-07-11T14:27:53Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2020-Jul-09, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I think we should define InvalidXLogSegNo to be ~((uint64)0) and add a
>> macro to test for that.

> That's overkill really.  I just used zero.  Running
> contrib/test_decoding under valgrind, this now passes.

> I think I'd rather do away with the compare to zero, and initialize to
> something else in GetWALAvailability, though.  What we're doing seems
> unclean and unclear.

Is zero really not a valid segment number?

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Fix uninitialized value in segno calculation

  2. Morph pg_replication_slots.min_safe_lsn to safe_wal_size