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()?
Should we be worried about that?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company