Re: Inconsistency in determining the timestamp of the db statfile.

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Magnus Hagander
Тема Re: Inconsistency in determining the timestamp of the db statfile.
Дата
Msg-id CABUevExyXLvs5CkriJu4Vjd4AcVbXE70uuQYxHWFU0s0CMJKCw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Inconsistency in determining the timestamp of the db statfile.  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers


On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:53 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 6:42 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On 2020-Sep-10, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 1:03 PM Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>
> > The comments already say what you said in the second suggestion:"The
> > caller must rely on timestamp stored in *ts iff the function returns
> > true.". Read iff "as if and only if"
>
> I think "must" should be "may" there, if we're nitpicking.
>

Here, we want to say that "caller can rely on *ts only if the function
returns true". If we replace 'must' with 'may' then it seems to me we
are trying to say that caller can ignore the timestamp value, if so,
why at first place caller has called this function.

This is true, but that should really be the decision of the caller, not of the function. 

But again, that's extremely nitpicky, so it doesn't really matter :)

And +1 on the push you did, and the decision not to backpatch it since there haven't been any reports.

--

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Magnus Hagander
Дата:
Сообщение: Function to execute a program
Следующее
От: Bharath Rupireddy
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Logical Replication - detail message with names of missing columns