Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Speaking of which, I think I've noticed a longer delay in server start
> after initdb. I haven't measured nor profiled it, but I think it may be
> because of the heap_inplace_update xlogging that we weren't doing
> previously.
Can't say that I've notic
Tom Lane wrote:
> Another issue is that this would replace a simple hint-bit setting with
> an index change that requires a WAL entry. There'll be more WAL traffic
> altogether from backends retail-deleting index tuples than there would
> be from VACUUM cleaning the whole page at once
Speaking o
