On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 05:07:00PM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote: > I think this comment is a side note which is stating that it is > possible that while XLogNeedFlush() is deciding that based on the > current flush position or min recovery point parallely someone might > flush beyond that point. And it was existing comment which has been > improved by adding min recovery points, so I think it makes sense.
Indeed. I have kept this one after drinking more caffeine, rewording it slightly. > I tried improving this comment as well. Feel free to disregard it if > you think it's not improving it. The new additions in XLogNeedsFlush() felt overweight, though, so I have kept a shorter and reworded version. Then, applied the result. Do we want to make the order of the checks to be more consistent in both routines? These would require a separate set of double-checks and review, but while we're looking at this area of the code we may as tweak it more.. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
