Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> This means that the WAL replay of that record type has never been tested >> correctly :-(. Looking closer at writeListPage(), why does it always >> include 'workspace' in the WAL record, even if a full-page-image is >> taken? It's not used for anything the the redo function. That's >> harmless, but bloats the WAL record unnecessary. In fact it might be >> better to never do full-page writes for that record type, since it >> completely overwrites the page anyway. > > Actually, the entire thing is misdesigned from the get-go. AFAICS > it shouldn't even have its own WAL record type --- it should be using > log_newpage().
Yeah, that would be even simpler. The WAL records it currenctly writes are more compact, but then again it probably makes no difference in practice. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
