At Tue, 7 Sep 2021 18:41:57 +0000, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossa...@amazon.com> wrote in > On 9/4/21, 10:26 AM, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > Attached are the same patches as last night, except I added a test for > > XLOG_DEBUG where pertinent. (The elog(PANIC) is not made conditional on > > that, since it's a cross-check rather than informative.) Also fixed the > > silly pg_rewind mistake I made. > > > > I'll work on the new xlog record early next week. > > Are these patches in a good state for some preliminary testing? I'd > like to try them out, but I'll hold off if they're not quite ready > yet.
Thanks! As my understanding the new record add the ability to cross-check between a teard-off contrecord and the new record inserted after the teard-off record. I didn't test the version by myself but the previous version implemented the essential machinery and that won't change fundamentally by the new record. So I think the current patch deserves to see the algorithm actually works against the problem. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
