Hi,
I agree that splitting the patch into two separate ones is a good one.
On 2015-05-01 09:57:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> If you don't object to this version, I'll commit it. I believe this
> part *should* be back-patched, but Tom seemed to disagree, for reasons
> I'm not really clear on. This is a potential data corrupting bug as
> legitimate as any other, so a back-patch seems right to me.
Agreed. Especially for WAL files this seems to be a pretty clear
correctness issue to me.
I unsurprisingly think the other patch is a good idea too. But it's
clearly *not* something for the back branches.
Greetings,
Andres Freund