Simon Riggs wrote:
> I've extended the patch without introducing another new status variable,
> which was my original concern with what you suggested previously.
Ok, that'll work. Committed, thanks. I changed the sanity check that
xlogfname > restore point into an Assert, though, because that's a sign
that something's wrong.
I noted that there's no reason why the truncation point calculation had
to be moved outside the case-statement, but it does look better that way
so I did apply that change.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
