Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> schrieb: >> Uh ... what does the last have to do with it? Surely we don't run >> VACUUM on replicas. Or are you talking about what might happen when >> VACUUM is run on a former replica that's been promoted to master?
> Unfortunately not. The problem is that xl_heap_freeze's redo function simply > reexecutes heap-freeze-tuple() instead of logging much about each tuple... That was a pretty stupid choice ... we should think seriously about changing that for 9.4. In general the application of a WAL record needs to be 100% deterministic. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers