On 07/23/2015 09:38 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
>>
>> This is more invasive than I'd like to backpatch, but I think it's the
>> simplest approach that works, and doesn't disable any of the important
>> optimizations we have.
>
> Hmm, isn't HeapNeedsWAL() a lot more costly than RelationNeedsWAL()?
Yes. But it's still very cheap, especially in the common case that the
pending syncs hash table is empty.
> Should we be worried about that?
It doesn't worry me.
- Heikki
