Hi, I agree that splitting the patch into two separate ones is a good one.
On 2015-05-01 09:57:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > If you don't object to this version, I'll commit it. I believe this > part *should* be back-patched, but Tom seemed to disagree, for reasons > I'm not really clear on. This is a potential data corrupting bug as > legitimate as any other, so a back-patch seems right to me. Agreed. Especially for WAL files this seems to be a pretty clear correctness issue to me. I unsurprisingly think the other patch is a good idea too. But it's clearly *not* something for the back branches. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
