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.
--Jacob
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers