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. It doesn't fix the issue for for wal_level=logical. We now log more WAL with XLogArchiveTimeout > 0 than without. The other was an architectural fix, this is a selectively applied bandaid. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers