| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Error with index on unlogged table |
| Date: | 2015-12-10 11:56:18 |
| Message-ID: | 20151210115618.GW4934@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> So, do we go for something like the patch you attached in
> 20151208125716(dot)GS4934(at)alap3(dot)anarazel(dot)de for master and 9.5, and for
> ~9.4 we use the one I wrote in
> CAB7nPqSxErpZJ+BZ-mfopzFZP5pAbiE9jWBUcJy6qaYertt4uw(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)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(at)tablecmds(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-12-10 12:07:03 | Re: Error with index on unlogged table |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-12-10 11:46:47 | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |