Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> BTW that tli_p business to the openSegment callback is horribly
> inconsistent. Some callers accept a NULL tli_p, others will outright
> crash, even though the API docs say that the callback must determine the
> timeline. This is made more complicated by us having the TLI in "seg"
> also. Unless I misread, the problem is again that the walsender code is
> doing nasty stuff with globals (endSegNo). As a very minor stylistic
> point, we prefer to have out params at the end of the signature.
XLogRead() tests for NULL so it should not crash but I don't insist on doing
it this way. XLogRead() actually does not have to care whether the "open
segment callback" determines the TLI or not, so it (XLogRead) can always
receive a valid pointer to seg.ws_tli. However that in turn implies that
XLogRead() does not need the "tli" argument at all.
> > > Why do we leave this responsibility to ReadPageInternal? Wouldn't it
> > > make more sense to leave XLogRead be always responsible for setting
> > > these correctly, and remove those lines from ReadPageInternal?
> >
> > I think there's no rule that ReadPageInternal() must use XLogRead(). If we do
> > what you suggest, we need make this responsibility documented. I'll consider
> > that.
I think now we should not add any responsibility to XLogPageReadCB or its
subroutines because some extensions might already have their implementation of
XLogPageReadCB w/o XLogRead, and this change would break them.
--
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com