Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Specifically, I propose this patch instead.
> It looks better, but leaves the door open for WAL insertions for a much
> longer period. Particularly, there's the call to CheckpointGuts(), which
> does a lot of things. Maybe I'm just too paranoid about keeping that
> sanity check as tight as possible...
Well, I'd prefer to go through the LocalSetXLogInsertAllowed/
reset LocalXLogInsertAllowed dance twice rather than have this code
calling InitXLOGAccess directly (and unconditionally, which was
even worse IMHO). But I don't actually see anything wrong with
having CheckpointGuts enabled to write WAL. I could even see that
being *necessary* in some future iteration of the system --- who's
to say that a checkpoint involves adding only one WAL entry?
regards, tom lane