> Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I tend to agree that truncating the file, and extending the fsync > request mechanism to actually delete it after the next checkpoint, > is the most reasonable route to a fix. >
How about just allowing to use wal even WAL archiving is disabled? It seems that recovery of "XLOG_HEAP_NEWPAGE" record will do the right thing for us, look at "heap_xlog_newpage": XLogReadBuffer with init=true will extend the block rightly and rebuild it rightly. Someone may say that it's not worth recording xlog for operations such as copy_relation_data, but these operations shouldn't happen frequently. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
