Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 8:58 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 2:20 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I think we should make this a little less fragile. Since we
>>> already have XLogRecGetBlockTagExtended, I propose that callers
>>> that need to handle the case of no-such-block must use that,
>>> while XLogRecGetBlockTag throws an error. The attached patch
>>> fixes that up, and also cleans up some random inconsistency
>>> about use of XLogRecHasBlockRef().
>> Looks reasonable.
> +1
Pushed, thanks for looking.
regards, tom lane
