On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:07:12PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > Consider if we move this call to bgwriter (aka flushing slots is no > longer part of a checkpoint), Would that be okay? Previously, I think > it was okay but not now. I see an argument to keep that as it is as > well because we have already mentioned the special shutdown checkpoint > case. By the way, I have changed this because Ashutosh felt it is no > longer correct to keep the first sentence as it is. See his email[1] > (Relying on the first sentence, ...).
Hmmm.. Okay.. > As other places don't have an assert, I didn't add one here but we can > add one here. I'd be OK with an assertion here at the end, though I'd still choose a stricter run-time check if I were to apply that myself. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
