Re: Corruption during WAL replay

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I like this patch.

I think the basic idea is about right, but I'm not happy with the
three-way delayChkpt business; that seems too cute by three-quarters.
I think two independent boolean flags, one saying "I'm preventing
checkpoint start" and one saying "I'm preventing checkpoint completion",
would be much less confusing and also more future-proof.  Who's to say
that we won't ever need both states to be set in the same process?

I also dislike the fact that the patch has made procarray.h depend
on proc.h ... maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that there was a reason
for keeping those independent, if indeed this hasn't actually resulted
in a circular-includes situation.  If we avoid inventing that enum type
then there's no need for that.  If we do need an enum, maybe it could
be put in some already-common prerequisite header.

            regards, tom lane