Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> How about the attached instead?
> This does possibly allocate an extra block past the target block. I'm
> not sure how surprising that would be for the rest of the code.
Should be fine; we could end up with an extra block after a failed
extension operation in any case.
> For what it's worth I've confirmed the bug in wal-e caused the initial
> problem.
Huh? Bug in wal-e? What bug?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
