On 2013-06-06 10:22:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > 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 ==.
Thanks! Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
