Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@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