> On 20 Sep 2017, at 00:29, Jacob Champion <pchamp...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > 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.
Based on the discussions in this thread, I’m marking this patch Returned with feedback. Please re-submit a new version in an upcoming commitfest when ready. cheers ./daniel -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
