Hi,
On 2025-01-14 12:54:36 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 01:46:53PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > I'd rather use RecoveryInProgress() here even if XLogInsertAllowed()
> > is a synonym of that, minus the update of LocalXLogInsertAllowed for
> > the local process.
>
> I've applied v2-0002 for the new header as it is useful on its own.
> Rebased to avoid the wrath of the CF bot, as v3.
Because I saw this being moved to the new CF: I continue to *strenuously*
object to this design. As outlined upthread, I think it's going into the
completely wrong direction.
- Andres
