On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> 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?
That's not what I think it meant: I don't wish to do the complicated approach either anymore. I sent two patches on the mail mentioned above: one for master/9.5 that used the approach of changing WAL, and a second aimed for 9.4 and old versions that is close to what you sent. It looks that you did not look at the second patch, named 20151209_replay_unlogged_94.patch that does some stuff with XLOG_HEAP_NEWPAGE to fix the issue. >> 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. > > Agreed. 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. Okidoki. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
