Oh, I am wrong!
"Jacky Leng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> дÈëÓʼþ
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> дÈëÓʼþ
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "Jacky Leng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Cann't we remove this param?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > We can rewrite like this:
> > > 1.XLogReadBuf
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> дÈëÓʼþ
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Jacky Leng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Cann't we remove this param?
>
> No.
>
> > We can rewrite like this:
> > 1.XLogReadBuffer:
> > * remove init;
> > * everytime we cann't read a block, just "log_invalid_page" it, and
re
"Jacky Leng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Cann't we remove this param?
No.
> We can rewrite like this:
> 1.XLogReadBuffer:
> * remove init;
> * everytime we cann't read a block, just "log_invalid_page" it, and return
> InvalidBuffer;
Your proposal degrades the robustness of the system by tu
