Re: BUG #5011: Standby recovery unable to follow timeline change

Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> ... but this solution is astonishingly ugly.  I think we should move up
>> the LocalSetXLogInsertAllowed call, instead.
>
> Specifically, I propose this patch instead.

It looks better, but leaves the door open for WAL insertions for a much
longer period. Particularly, there's the call to CheckpointGuts(), which
does a lot of things. Maybe I'm just too paranoid about keeping that
sanity check as tight as possible...

> I'm not set up to try the test case though, can you do that?

Sure.

--
  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com