Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Thanks for the review. I have committed the patches.
No objections to what was committed.
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 2:59 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > There is more to it: the page LSN is checked before its checksum.
> > Hence, if the pag
Thanks for the review. I have committed the patches.
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 2:59 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> Seems right, I think that you should backpatch that as
> VERIFY_CHECKSUMS is the default.
Done.
> There is more to it: the page LSN is checked before its checksum.
> Hence, if the page's
On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 03:23:51PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> 0001 fixes what I believe to be a slight logical error in sendFile(),
> introduced by me during the v15 development cycle when I introduced
> the bbsink abstraction. I believe that it is theoretically possible
> for this to cause an ass
Here are a few small patches for basebackup.c:
0001 fixes what I believe to be a slight logical error in sendFile(),
introduced by me during the v15 development cycle when I introduced
the bbsink abstraction. I believe that it is theoretically possible
for this to cause an assertion failure, altho
