Re: concerns around pg_lsn

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 02:22:30PM +0530, Jeevan Ladhe wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 9:42 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>> Agreed about making the code more defensive as you do.  I would keep
>> the initialization in check_recovery_target_lsn and pg_lsn_in_internal
>> though.  That does not hurt and makes the code easier to understand,
>> aka we don't expect an error by default in those paths.
>>
> 
> Sure, understood. I am ok with this.

I am adding Peter Eisentraut in CC as 21f428e is his commit.  I think
that the first patch is a good idea, so I would be fine to apply it,
but let's see the original committer's opinion first.
--
Michael