On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 15:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 13:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Ugh. I'm beginning to think we ought to revert the patch that added the
> >> don't-split-across-files logic to XLogInsert; that seems to have broken
> >> more assumptions than I realized.
>
> > The problem was that a zero length XLOG_WASTED_SPACE record just fell
> > out of ReadRecord when it shouldn't have. By giving it a helping hand it
> > makes it through with pointers correctly set, and everything else was
> > already thought of in the earlier patch, so xlog_redo etc happens.
>
> Yeah, but the WASTED_SPACE/FILE_HEADER stuff is already pretty ugly, and
> adding two more warts to the code to support it is sticking in my craw.
> I'm thinking it would be cleaner to treat the extra labeling information
> as an extension of the WAL page header.
Sounds like a better solution than scrabbling around at the end of file
with too many edge cases to test properly
...over to you then...
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
