On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello < fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Andres Freund wrote: > > > > > Have you looked at the correctness of the patch itself? Last time I'd > > > looked it has fundamental correctness issues. I'd outlined a possible > > > solution, but I haven't looked since. > > > > Yeah, Fabrizio had it passing the relpersistence down to make_new_heap, > > so the transient table is created with the right setting. AFAICS it's > > good now. I'm a bit uneasy about the way it changes indexes: it just > > updates pg_class for them just before invoking the reindex in > > finish_heap_swap. I think it's correct as it stands though; at least, > > the rewrite phase happens with the right setting, so that if there are > > constraints being checked and these invoke index scans, such accesses > > would not leave buffers with the wrong setting in shared_buffers. > > > > Ok. > > > > Another option would be to pass the new relpersistence down to > > finish_heap_swap, but that would be hugely complicated AFAICS. > > > > I think isn't so complicated to do it, but will this improve something ? > Maybe I didn't understand it very well. IMHO it just complicate a > simple thing. > > > > > Here's the updated patch. > > > > Thanks Alvaro! >
I forgot to mention... I did again a lot of tests using different replication scenarios to make sure all is ok: - slaves async - slaves sync - cascade slaves Regards, -- Fabrízio de Royes Mello Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL >> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br >> Blog: http://fabriziomello.github.io >> Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello >> Github: http://github.com/fabriziomello
