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.
--
Michael