On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Jacob Champion <pchamp...@pivotal.io> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> In short, it seems to me that this patch should be rejected in its >> current shape. > > Is the half of the patch that switches PageGetLSN to > BufferGetLSNAtomic correct, at least?
Any further thoughts on this? If the BufferGetLSNAtomic fixes made here are not correct to begin with, then the rest of the patch is probably moot; I just want to double-check that that is the case. --Jacob -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
