Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> Attached patch reverses the check, and adds a failure message. I'd
> appreciate a quick review in case I have the logic backwards in my head...
I think the patch is correct, but if there's any documentation of the
walmethod APIs that would allow one to assert which side of the API got
this wrong, I sure don't see it. Would it be unreasonable to insist
on some documentation around that?
regards, tom lane