Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 07:23 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> Is there a reason that you remove the WAL_DEBUG shown below?
> WAL_DEBUG is not removed by the patch, though that section of code is
> removed, as you observe. I recall an earlier bug report by
> me/conversation on hackers about how that section of code was
> irrecoverably broken, since it's calling an rmgr routine while not in
> recovery and also assuming the data is fully accessible at that point,
> which it is not.
Wouldn't it be sufficient to remove the rm_desc() call? I agree
that that's broken, but the rest doesn't seem to be.
regards, tom lane