On 6 April 2016 at 09:45, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2016-04-06 09:18:54 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > Rather than take that option, I went to the trouble of writing a patch > that > > does the same thing but simpler, less invasive and more maintainable. > > Primarily, I did that for you, to avoid you having wasted your time and > to > > allow you to backpatch a solution. > > But it doesn't. It doesn't solve the longstanding problem of checkpoints > needlessly being repeated due to standby snapshots.
<sigh> I can't see why you say this. I am willing to listen, but this appears to be wrong. > It doesn't fix the > issue for for wal_level=logical. What issue is that? Previously you said it must not skip it at all for logical. > We now log more WAL with > XLogArchiveTimeout > 0 than without. > And the problem with that is what? > The other was an architectural fix, this is a selectively applied > bandaid. > It was an attempt at an architectural fix, which went wrong by being too much code and too invasive for such a minor issue. I'm not much concerned with what emotive language you choose to support your arguments, but I am concerned about clear, maintainable code and I object to the previous patch. There are other problems worthy of our attention and I will attend to those now. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
