Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@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
