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.

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

Reply via email to