On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 04:27:50PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > At Mon, 5 Dec 2022 10:03:55 +0900, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> > wrote in >> Hence I would tend to let XLogFromFileName do the job, while having a >> SQL function that is just a thin wrapper around it that returns the >> segment TLI and its number, leaving the offset out of the equation as >> well as this new XLogIdFromFileName(). > > I don't think it could be problematic that the SQL-callable function > returns a bogus result for a wrong WAL filename in the correct > format. Specifically, I think that the function may return (0/0,0) for > "000000000000000000000000" since that behavior is completely > harmless. If we don't check logid, XLogFromFileName fits instead.
Yeah, I really don't think that it is a big deal either: XLogIdFromFileName() just translates what it receives from the caller for the TLI and the segment number. > (If we assume that the file names are typed in letter-by-letter, I > rather prefer to allow lower-case letters:p) Yep, makes sense to enforce a compatible WAL segment name if we can. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
