On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> I'm still not sure if I should've just reverted that refactoring, to make
>> XLogFileCopy() look the same in master and back-branches, which makes
>> back-patching easier, or keep the refactoring, because it makes the code
>> slightly nicer. But the current situation is the worst of both worlds: the
>> interface of XLogFileCopy() is no better than it used to be, but it's
>> different enough to cause merge conflicts. At this point, it's probably best
>> to revert the code to look the same as in 9.4.
>
> That's a valid concern. What about the attached then? I think that it
> is still good to keep upto to copy only data up to the switch point at
> recovery exit. InstallXLogFileSegment() changes a bit as well because
> of its modifications of arguments.
Applied. Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao