On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Andres Freund <andres@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 ==.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
