On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Yeah, I think it's fine. The patch also looks fine, although I think >> the comments could use a bit of tidying. I guess we need to >> back-patch this all the way back to 8.4? It will require some >> adjustments for the older branches. > > I think 9.2 is actually far enough and it should apply there. Before > that we only logged the unsetting of all_visible via > heap_(inset|update|delete)'s wal records not the setting as far as I can > tell. So I don't immediately see a danger < 9.2.
OK. I have committed this. For 9.2, I had to backport log_newpage_buffer() and use XLByteEQ rather than ==. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
