Andres Freund <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[email protected]> schrieb:
>> Uh ... what does the last have to do with it? Surely we don't run
>> VACUUM on replicas. Or are you talking about what might happen when
>> VACUUM is run on a former replica that's been promoted to master?
> Unfortunately not. The problem is that xl_heap_freeze's redo function simply
> reexecutes heap-freeze-tuple() instead of logging much about each tuple...
That was a pretty stupid choice ... we should think seriously about
changing that for 9.4. In general the application of a WAL record
needs to be 100% deterministic.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
