On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 15:01:24 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time) Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> At Wed, 29 Aug 2018 20:10:15 +0900, Yugo Nagata <nag...@sraoss.co.jp> wrote > in <20180829201015.d9d4fde2748910e86a13c...@sraoss.co.jp> > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 16:01:53 +0530 > > Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > By the way, I think we can fix this also by clearing the header > > > > information of the last > > > > page instead of setting a checksum to the unused page although I am not > > > > sure which way > > > > is better. > > > > > > > > > > I think that can complicate the WAL logging of this operation which we > > > are able to deal easily with log_newpage and it sounds quite hacky. > > > The fix I have posted seems better, but I am open to suggestions. > > > > Thank you for your explanation. I understood this way could make the > > codes complicated, so I think the way you posted is better. > > FWIW, I confirmed that this is the only place where smgrextend > for non-zero pages is not preceded by checksum calculation. I also confirmed this. I didn't know calling PageSetChecksumInplace before smgrextend for non-zero pages was a typical coding pattern. Thanks. Regards, -- Yugo Nagata <nag...@sraoss.co.jp>
