Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> A potentially stronger complaint is that WAL-reading tools might fail
>> outright on a page with an invalid header, but I'd say that's a robustness
>> issue that they'd need to address anyway. There's never been any
>> guarantee that the trailing pages of a WAL segment are valid.
> Agreed, I don't buy off that tools which fall apart when reading a page
> with an invalid header should block this from moving forward- those
> tools need to be fixed to not rely on trailing/unused WAL pages to be
> valid.
Yup. Pushed with some rewriting of the comments.
I did not like the proposed test case too much, particularly not its
undocumented API change for check_pg_config, so I did not push that.
We already have test coverage for pg_switch_wal() so it doesn't seem
very critical to have more.
regards, tom lane
