On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: > > This is more invasive than I'd like to backpatch, but I think it's the > simplest approach that works, and doesn't disable any of the important > optimizations we have.
Hmm, isn't HeapNeedsWAL() a lot more costly than RelationNeedsWAL()? Should we be worried about that? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
