On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Wouldn't the definition of a new redo action make sense then? Say > SKIPPED. None of the existing actions match the non-apply case.
I just took 5 minutes to look at the code and reason about it, and something like what your patch is doing would be actually fine. Still I don't think that checking for the apply flag in the macro routine should look for has_image. Let's keep things separate. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
