> So, do we go for something like the patch you attached in
> 20151208125716.gs4...@alap3.anarazel.de for master and 9.5, and for
> ~9.4 we use the one I wrote in
> cab7npqsxerpzj+bz-mfopzfzp5pabie9jwbucjy6qayertt...@mail.gmail.com?

I'm more thinking of using something like my patch for all branches. Why
would we want to go for the more complicated approach in the more
distant branches?

> Note that in both cases the patches are not complete, we need to fix
> as well copy_relation_data@tablecmds.c so as the INIT_FORKNUM pages
> are logged all the time.

Aggreed. It's probably better treated as an entirely different - pretty
ugly - bug though. I mean it's not some issue of a race during replay,
it's entirely missing WAL logging for SET TABLESPACE of unlogged


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to