Re: WAL consistency check facility

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hehe, I was expecting you to jump on those lines. While looking at the
> patch I have simplified it first to focus on the core engine of the
> thing. Adding back this code sounds fine to me as there is a wall of
> contestation. I offer to do it myself if the effort is the problem.

IMHO, your rewrite of this patch was a bit heavy-handed.  I haven't
scrutinized the code here so maybe it was a big improvement, and if so
fine, but if not it's better to collaborate with the author than to
take over.  In any case, yeah, I think you should put that back.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company