On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 05:00:58PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > The problem with log_newpage_buffer() is that we'd quite possibly issue > one such call per item on a page. And that might become quite > expensive. Logging ~1.5MB per 8k page in the worst case sounds a bit > scary.
I had in mind issuing at most one call per page. heap_page_prune() has a structure conducive to that. > On 2013-11-30 00:40:06 -0500, Noah Misch wrote: > > Time is tight to finalize this, but it would be best to get this into next > > week's release. That way, the announcement, fix, and mitigating code > > pertaining to this data loss bug all land in the same release. If > > necessary, > > I think it would be worth delaying the release, or issuing a new release a > > week or two later, to closely align those events. > I am not sure if it's a good idea to delay the release because of this, > there are so many other critical issues that that seems like a bad > tradeoff. Fair enough; I'll drop that proposal. -- Noah Misch EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
