From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: CF bug fix items |
Date: | 2018-06-11 17:11:42 |
Message-ID: | 20180611171142.qaevxffdq4hai273@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-06-11 13:30:27 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > "Fix the optimization to skip WAL-logging on table created in same
> > transaction" has been in 10 (!) commitfests. It's seen no substantive action
> > since November. It has a bunch of authors and reviewers listed, Surely
> > somebody can move it forward?
>
> I think that this is a complicated topic, which results in a rather
> large and invasive patch introducing new logic concepts in order to fix
> a rather narrow use-case. So I am wondering if it is really something
> we ought to fix here..
I think we absolutely definitely need to fix it, or remove
wal_level=minimal. It's a failure to provide the fundamental guarantees
a database should provide. It seems not unreasonable to commit something
to v11 and then backpatch a bit later, to manage risk, however.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nico Williams | 2018-06-11 17:13:17 | Re: [PATCH v16] GSSAPI encryption support |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-06-11 16:56:45 | Re: hot_standby_feedback vs excludeVacuum and snapshots |