On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 11:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> > On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 07:23 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> >> Is there a reason that you remove the WAL_DEBUG shown below?
>
> > WAL_DEBUG is not removed by the patch, though that section of code is
> > removed, as you observe. I recall an earlier bug report by
> > me/conversation on hackers about how that section of code was
> > irrecoverably broken, since it's calling an rmgr routine while not in
> > recovery and also assuming the data is fully accessible at that point,
> > which it is not.
>
> Wouldn't it be sufficient to remove the rm_desc() call? I agree
> that that's broken, but the rest doesn't seem to be.
That would make sense also. Previous action just because that was
earlier consensus. Will change.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
