Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> I agree with Tom about the need for a fix that prevents generation of
> repeated WAL records.
> OTOH, I also like Joe's fix in the recovery code to avoid responding
> to repeated records.
> Can we have both please?
Why? The patch in the recovery code is seriously ugly, and it won't
do anything useful once we've fixed the other end. Please notice also
that we'd need several instances of that kluge if we want to cover all
the SLRU-based cases.
regards, tom lane
