Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > Whee, testing is fun. Second try.
I'm concerned by the fact that neither the original nor the new code bother to test whether the relation is WAL-loggable. It may be that ginbuildempty cannot be invoked for temp tables, but it still seems like an oversight waiting to bite you. I'd be happier if there were a RelationNeedsWAL test here. Come to think of it, the other foobuildempty functions aren't checking this either. A related point is that most of the other existing calls to log_newpage are covered by "if (XLogIsNeeded())" tests. It's not immediately obvious why these two shouldn't be. After some reflection I think that's correct, but probably the comments for log_newpage and log_newpage_buffer need to explain the different WAL-is-needed tests that apply to the two usages. (I'm also thinking that the XLogIsNeeded macro is very poorly named, as the situations it should be used in are far more narrow than the macro name suggests. Haven't consumed enough caffeine to think of a better name, though.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers