On 6 April 2016 at 09:45, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:

> 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.

<sigh> I can't see why you say this. I am willing to listen, but this
appears to be wrong.

> It doesn't fix the
> issue for for wal_level=logical.

What issue is that? Previously you said it must not skip it at all for

> We now log more WAL with
> XLogArchiveTimeout > 0 than without.

And the problem with that is what?

> The other was an architectural fix, this is a selectively applied
> bandaid.

It was an attempt at an architectural fix, which went wrong by being too
much code and too invasive for such a minor issue.

I'm not much concerned with what emotive language you choose to support
your arguments, but I am concerned about clear, maintainable code and I
object to the previous patch.

There are other problems worthy of our attention and I will attend to those

Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Reply via email to