Re: Isn't wait_for_catchup slightly broken?

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 02:31:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> So I think we need to fix it to capture the target WAL position
> at the start, as I've done in the attached patch.

+1, it looks sensible to me.

> In principle
> this might make things a bit slower because of the extra
> transaction required, but I don't notice any above-the-noise
> difference on my own workstation.

I'm wondering if the environments where this extra transaction could make
a noticeable difference are also environments where doing that extra
transaction can save some iteration(s), which would be at least as costly.