On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 03:28:22PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I can understand this comment as I am aware of this code but not sure
> it would be equally easy for the people first time looking at this
> code. One may try to find the equivalent assertion in
> _hash_freeovflpage(). The alternative could be: "Ensure that the
> required flags are set when there are no tuples. See
> _hash_freeovflpage().". I am also fine if you prefer to go with your
> proposed comment.
Yes, I can see your point about why that's confusing. Your suggestion
is much better, so after a second look I've used your version of the
comment and applied the patch on HEAD.
I am wondering if we have other problems like that with dirty buffers
at replay. Perhaps I should put my nose more onto the replay paths
and extend these automated checks with wal_consistency_checking.
--
Michael