On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 11:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 07:23 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > >> Is there a reason that you remove the WAL_DEBUG shown below? > > > WAL_DEBUG is not removed by the patch, though that section of code is > > removed, as you observe. I recall an earlier bug report by > > me/conversation on hackers about how that section of code was > > irrecoverably broken, since it's calling an rmgr routine while not in > > recovery and also assuming the data is fully accessible at that point, > > which it is not. > > Wouldn't it be sufficient to remove the rm_desc() call? I agree > that that's broken, but the rest doesn't seem to be.
That would make sense also. Previous action just because that was earlier consensus. Will change. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
