Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> ... but this solution is astonishingly ugly. I think we should move up
>> the LocalSetXLogInsertAllowed call, instead.
>
> Specifically, I propose this patch instead.
It looks better, but leaves the door open for WAL insertions for a much
longer period. Particularly, there's the call to CheckpointGuts(), which
does a lot of things. Maybe I'm just too paranoid about keeping that
sanity check as tight as possible...
> I'm not set up to try the test case though, can you do that?
Sure.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
