On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Michael Paquier
>>> -    /* If it's a full-page image, restore it. */
>>> -    if (XLogRecHasBlockImage(record, block_id))
>>> +    /* If full-page image should be restored, do it. */
>>> +    if (XLogRecBlockImageApply(record, block_id))
>>> Hm. It seems to me that this modification is incorrect. If the page
>>> does not need to be applied, aka if it needs to be used for
>>> consistency checks, what should be done is more something like the
>>> following in XLogReadBufferForRedoExtended:
>>> if (Apply(record, block_id))
>>>     return;
>>> if (HasImage)
>>> {
>>>     //do what needs to be done with an image
>>> }
>>> else
>>> {
>>>     //do default things
>>> }
>>>
>> XLogReadBufferForRedoExtended should return a redo action
>> (block restored, done, block needs redo or block not found). So, we
>> can't just return
>> from the function if BLKIMAGE_APPLY flag is not set. It still has to
>> check whether a
>> redo is required or not.
>
> Wouldn't the definition of a new redo action make sense then? Say
> SKIPPED. None of the existing actions match the non-apply case.

As per my understanding, XLogReadBufferForRedoExtended works as follows:
1.  If wal record has backup block
2.  {
3.   restore the backup block;
4.   return BLK_RESTORED;
5.  }
6.  else
7.  {
8.   If block found in buffer
10.  If lsn of block is less than last replayed record
11.   return BLK_DONE;
12.  else
13.   return BLK_NEEDS_REDO;
14. else
15.  return BLK_NOT_FOUND;
16. }
Now, we can just change step 1 as follows:
1.  If wal record has backup block and it needs to be restored.

I'm not getting why we should introduce a new redo action and return
from the function beforehand.

-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to