On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> I'm still not sure if I should've just reverted that refactoring, to make >> XLogFileCopy() look the same in master and back-branches, which makes >> back-patching easier, or keep the refactoring, because it makes the code >> slightly nicer. But the current situation is the worst of both worlds: the >> interface of XLogFileCopy() is no better than it used to be, but it's >> different enough to cause merge conflicts. At this point, it's probably best >> to revert the code to look the same as in 9.4. > > That's a valid concern. What about the attached then? I think that it > is still good to keep upto to copy only data up to the switch point at > recovery exit. InstallXLogFileSegment() changes a bit as well because > of its modifications of arguments.
Applied. Thanks! Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
