Horton

Re: Incorrect logic in XLogNeedsFlush()

Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Date: 2025-09-10T16:58:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, 2025-09-10 at 11:12 -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> So, would you consider the defining characteristic of whether or not
> we should use the flush pointer instead of min recovery point in
> XLogNeedsFlush() to be whether or not WAL inserts are allowed?

That was my question here:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/b4ad535a72fc02ea43076cf525e4dbaa72b00d5b.camel@j-davis.com

It seems like XLogFlush() and XLogNeedsFlush() should use the same
test, otherwise you could always get some confusing inconsistency.
Right?

Regards,
	Jeff Davis

Commits

  1. Reorder XLogNeedsFlush() checks to be more consistent

  2. Make XLogFlush() and XLogNeedsFlush() decision-making more consistent