On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> 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?

That's not what I think it meant: I don't wish to do the complicated
approach either anymore. I sent two patches on the mail mentioned
above: one for master/9.5 that used the approach of changing WAL, and
a second aimed for 9.4 and old versions that is close to what you
sent. It looks that you did not look at the second patch, named
20151209_replay_unlogged_94.patch that does some stuff with
XLOG_HEAP_NEWPAGE to fix the issue.

>> 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.
> Agreed. 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
> relations.


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

Reply via email to