On 12/3/15 11:10 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On 10/22/15 1:42 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> I am not sure that I am not getting completely your point, why would
>>> it be a win to remove this safety check? We surely do not want to look
>>> for the common ancestor timeline if the target and source nodes have
>>> the same timeline, so we should not remove this check and just set
>>> rewind_needed to false to fallback to the same exit(0) for all those
>>> code paths. Per se the attached for example.
>>
>> After playing with this a bit, I think your patch is correct. The code
>> has drifted a bit in the meantime, so attached is an updated patch.
>
> Thanks for looking at it.
I committed this to master. It's also on the 9.5 open item list, but if
I backport it then the tests don't pass. Still looking. Not sure yet
if this is because of code changes in pg_rewind master or test
infrastructure changes in master.
