On 2016-04-06 09:18:54 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Rather than take that option, I went to the trouble of writing a patch that
> does the same thing but simpler, less invasive and more maintainable.
> Primarily, I did that for you, to avoid you having wasted your time and to
> allow you to backpatch a solution.
But it doesn't. It doesn't solve the longstanding problem of checkpoints
needlessly being repeated due to standby snapshots. It doesn't fix the
issue for for wal_level=logical. We now log more WAL with
XLogArchiveTimeout > 0 than without.
The other was an architectural fix, this is a selectively applied
bandaid.
Andres
