Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> > wrote:
> > I'd argue about this in the same direction I argued about > > BufferGetPage() needing an LSN check that's applied separately: if it's > > too easy for a developer to do the wrong thing (i.e. fail to apply the > > separate LSN check after reading the page) then the routine should be > > patched to do the check itself, and another routine should be offered > > for the cases that explicitly can do without the check. > > > > I was eventually outvoted in the BufferGetPage() saga, though, so I'm > > not sure that that discussion sets precedent. > > Oh... I don't recall this discussion. A quick lookup at the archives > does not show me a specific thread either. Just search for "Æsop" in the archives: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CACjxUsPPCbov6DDPnuGpR=fmxhsjsn_mri3rjygvbrmcrff...@mail.gmail.com -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
