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.
<sigh> I can't see why you say this. I am willing to listen, but this appears to be wrong.
It doesn't fix the issue for for wal_level=logical.
What issue is that? Previously you said it must not skip it at all for logical.
We now log more WAL with XLogArchiveTimeout > 0 than without.
And the problem with that is what?
The other was an architectural fix, this is a selectively applied bandaid.
It was an attempt at an architectural fix, which went wrong by being too much code and too invasive for such a minor issue.
I'm not much concerned with what emotive language you choose to support your arguments, but I am concerned about clear, maintainable code and I object to the previous patch.
There are other problems worthy of our attention and I will attend to those now.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
