> So, do we go for something like the patch you attached in > 20151208125716.gs4...@alap3.anarazel.de for master and 9.5, and for > ~9.4 we use the one I wrote in > cab7npqsxerpzj+bz-mfopzfzp5pabie9jwbucjy6qayertt...@mail.gmail.com?
I'm more thinking of using something like my patch for all branches. Why would we want to go for the more complicated approach in the more distant branches? > Note that in both cases the patches are not complete, we need to fix > as well copy_relation_data@tablecmds.c so as the INIT_FORKNUM pages > are logged all the time. Aggreed. It's probably better treated as an entirely different - pretty ugly - bug though. I mean it's not some issue of a race during replay, it's entirely missing WAL logging for SET TABLESPACE of unlogged relations. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
