Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 13:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, I dunno, it seems like that might be a bad choice. Are you sure
>> it's not cleaner to just use the regular checkpoint code?
> When I tried to write it, it just looked to my eyes like every single
> line had a caveat which looked ugly and multiplied the testing. You're
> the code dude, always happy to structure things as you suggest. If
> you're sure, that is.
No, was just wondering if the other way would be better. If you're
sure not, that's fine.
regards, tom lane
