On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deola...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Peter Eisentraut >> >> >> >>> Can we prevent HOT pruning during logical decoding? >> >> >> >> It does not sound much difficult to do, couldn't you just make it a >> >> no-op with am_walsender? >> > >> > That's my hope. >> >> The only code path doing HOT-pruning and generating WAL is >> heap_page_prune(). Do you think that we need to worry about FPWs as >> well? > > > IMO the check should go inside heap_page_prune_opt(). Do we need to worry > about wal_log_hints or checksums producing WAL because of hint bit updates? > While I haven't read the thread, I am assuming if HOT pruning can happen, > surely hint bits can get set too.
Yeah, that's as well what I am worrying about. Experts of logical decoding will correct me, but it seems to me that we have to cover all the cases where heap scans can generate WAL. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers