> On 20 Sep 2017, at 00:29, Jacob Champion <pchampion@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Jacob Champion <pchampion@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paquier@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