On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > In other words, I think Masahiko Sawada's patch in the original post > is pretty much right on target, except that we don't need to do that > always, but rather only in the FPI case when the call to > visibilitymap_pin() is being optimized away. If we solve the problem > that way, I don't think we even need a new WAL record for this case, > which is a non-trivial fringe benefit.
The visibility map is not the only thing that need to be addressed, no? For example take this report from Dmitry Vasilyev of a couple of months back where index relations are not visible on a standby: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB-SwXY6oH=9twbkxjtgr4uc1nqt-vpyatxcseme62adwyk...@mail.gmail.com This is really leading to a solution where we need to take a more general approach to this problem instead of trying to patch multiple WAL replay code paths. And Andres' stuff does so. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
