Hi, On 2025-01-14 12:54:36 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 01:46:53PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > I'd rather use RecoveryInProgress() here even if XLogInsertAllowed() > > is a synonym of that, minus the update of LocalXLogInsertAllowed for > > the local process. > > I've applied v2-0002 for the new header as it is useful on its own. > Rebased to avoid the wrath of the CF bot, as v3.
Because I saw this being moved to the new CF: I continue to *strenuously* object to this design. As outlined upthread, I think it's going into the completely wrong direction. - Andres
