On 2015-07-21 21:37:41 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 02:24:47PM -0400, Todd A. Cook wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This thread seemed to trail off without a resolution. Was anything done?
>
> Not that I can tell.
Heikki and I had some in-person conversation about it at a conference,
but we didn't really find anything we both liked...
>I was the original poster of this thread. We've
> worked around the issue by placing a CHECKPOINT command at the end of
> the migration script. For us it's not a performance issue, more a
> correctness one, tables were empty when they shouldn't have been.
If it's just correctness, you could just use wal_level = archive.
> I'm hoping a fix will appear in the 9.5 release, since we're intending
> to release with that version. A forced checkpoint every now and them
> probably won't be a serious problem though.
We're imo going to have to fix this in the back branches.
Andres