On 07/23/2015 09:38 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
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()?
Yes. But it's still very cheap, especially in the common case that the
pending syncs hash table is empty.
Should we be worried about that?
It doesn't worry me.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
