I wrote: > ... We can make this function far simpler > and more obviously correct if we just accept that we'll read a > WAL file completely before spilling it. See my proposed > alternative to 0004, attached.
Actually, we can make that better yet by not expecting get_archive_wal_entry to clean up after init_archive's failure to free all irrelevant hashtable entries. Better version attached.
Yeah, this looks good. I know we also still need to do something about rmtree trying to remove files we haven't closed. But what we have so far in this set LGTM. If you want to push this I'm good, otherwise I'll look at it tomorrow or Tuesday.
