On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 10:58 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > 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.
Thanks. > 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.. I see both routines have the same order i.e. first check if (!XLogInsertAllowed()) and then if (record <= LogwrtResult.Flush), what am I missing? -- Regards, Dilip Kumar Google
