On 2021-Nov-26, Amul Sul wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 1:42 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >
> > Meh ... but given the simplicity of the write-side fix, maybe changing
> > it is appropriate.
Actually, fixing the other side is equally simple, and it is also more
correct. What changed my mind is that upon completing a successful read
of a record, what we set as state->ReadRecPtr is the local variable
RecPtr -- so that is what becomes the true LSN of the record. Using
state->currRecPtr is inconsistent with that definition.
> Unless I am missing something, I am not sure why need this adjustment
> if we are going to use state->currRecPtr value which doesn't seem to
> be changing at all. AFAICU, state->currRecPtr will be unchanged value
> whether going to set overwrittenRecPtr or abortedRecPtr. Do primary
> and standby see state->currRecPtr differently, I guess not, never?
You're right for the wrong reason. We don't need the adjustment in the
verify routine. The reason we don't is that we're not going to use
state->currRecPtr anymore, but rather RecPtr in both places. You're
thinking that primary and standby would never "see state->currRecPtr
differently", but that's only if they are both running the same code.
If you had a primary running 14.1 and a standby running 14.2, with the
previously proposed fix (using state->currRecPtr), you would be in
trouble. With this fix (using RecPtr) it works fine.
--
Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/