On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> The cause here is data changing underneath the user. Your patch solves >> the most obvious error, but it still allows other problems if applying >> the backup block changes data. If the backup block doesn't do anything >> at all then we don't need to apply it either. > > This is nonsense. What applying the backup block does is to apply the > change that the WAL record would otherwise have applied, except we > decided to make it store a full-page image instead.
Yep, you're right, my bad. Got a head cold, so will lay off a few days from too much thinking. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
