On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 email@example.com 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. > > Okidoki.
In short: should I send patches for all those things or are you on it? It seems that we are on the same page: using the simple approach, with XLOG_FPI that enforces the flushes for 9.5/master and XLOG_HEAP_NEWPAGE that does the same for ~9.4. For the second issue, I would just need to extract the fix from one of the patches upthread. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers