Simon Riggs <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Well, it's expected given the current coding in the btree vacuum logic. >> It's not clear to me why it was written like that, though. > The code works as designed. > _bt_delitems_vacuum() is only ever called with nitems == 0 when it is > the last block of the relation with wal_level = hot standby > As discussed in the comments we must issue a WAL record for the last > block, whatever else has occurred. > So the correct number of WAL records is emitted and I see no bug there. What Thom's complaining about is that the buffer may be marked dirty unnecessarily, ie when there has been no actual data change. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
