On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)pivotal(dot)io> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)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