On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> How about the attached instead?
This does possibly allocate an extra block past the target block. I'm
not sure how surprising that would be for the rest of the code.
For what it's worth I've confirmed the bug in wal-e caused the initial
problem. But I think it's possible to occur without that bug so I
think it still needs to be addressed.
--
greg
