On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 8:07 AM Dilip Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 4:51 AM Michael Paquier <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 09:58:08AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > > > It seems like XLogFlush() and XLogNeedsFlush() should use the same > > > test, otherwise you could always get some confusing inconsistency. > > > Right? > > > > Even if the checks are duplicated (dependency could be documented as > > well), it would make sense to me to plant a check of XLogNeedsFlush() > > inside XLogFlush(), I think. I have not tried if some parts of the > > tests blow up when trying to do that even after switching > > XLogNeedsFlush() to check if WAL inserts are allowed rather than if we > > are in recovery. > > +1, it really makes XLogFlush() to directly check using > XLogNeedsFlush() after adding the "WAL inserts are allowed" check in > XLogNeedsFlush(), this is the best way to avoid any inconsistencies in > future as well.
I tried with the attached patch, at least check-world reports no issue. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar Google
0001-Make-XLogFlush-and-XLogNeedsFlush-decision-more-cons.patch
Description: Binary data
