Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Off-by-one error in logical slot resource retention

2017-10-01 Thread Craig Ringer
On 2 October 2017 at 05:27, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > On 15 Sep 2017, at 13:26, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > > >> On 01 Sep 2017, at 14:28, Aleksander Alekseev < > a.aleks...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > >> > >> The following review has been posted through the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Off-by-one error in logical slot resource retention

2017-10-01 Thread Daniel Gustafsson
> On 15 Sep 2017, at 13:26, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > >> On 01 Sep 2017, at 14:28, Aleksander Alekseev >> wrote: >> >> The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: >> make installcheck-world: not tested >> Implements

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Off-by-one error in logical slot resource retention

2017-09-15 Thread Daniel Gustafsson
> On 01 Sep 2017, at 14:28, Aleksander Alekseev > wrote: > > The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: > make installcheck-world: not tested > Implements feature: not tested > Spec compliant: not tested > Documentation:

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Off-by-one error in logical slot resource retention

2017-09-01 Thread Aleksander Alekseev
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: not tested Implements feature: not tested Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:not tested Hi Craig, I'm afraid patches 0002 and 0003 don't apply anymore. Could you

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Off-by-one error in logical slot resource retention

2017-03-08 Thread Craig Ringer
On 9 March 2017 at 11:17, Craig Ringer wrote: > Hi all > > I've found a minor off-by-one error in the resource retention logic > for logical slots, where we treat confirmed_flush as meaning "flushed > up to and including this LSN". Seems reasonable, but the rest of the >

[HACKERS] [PATCH] Off-by-one error in logical slot resource retention

2017-03-08 Thread Craig Ringer
Hi all I've found a minor off-by-one error in the resource retention logic for logical slots, where we treat confirmed_flush as meaning "flushed up to and including this LSN". Seems reasonable, but the rest of the code treats it as "flushed up to but excluding this LSN". In particular, we treat