Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

On 2018-Jul-12, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:

> > > Thanks for the pointer. My tap test has been covering two out of
> > > the three scenarios you have in your script. I have been able to
> > > convert the extra as the attached, and I have added as well an
> > > extra test with TRUNCATE triggers. So it seems to me that we want
> > > to disable the optimization if any type of trigger are defined on
> > > the relation copied to as it could be possible that these triggers
> > > work on the blocks copied as well, for any BEFORE/AFTER and
> > > STATEMENT/ROW triggers. What do you think?
> >
> > Yeah, this seems like the only sane approach.
>
> Doesn't have to be a trigger, could be a CHECK constraint, datatype
> input function, etc. Admittedly, having a datatype input function that
> inserts to the table is worth a "huh?", but I'm feeling very confident
> that we can catch all such cases, and some of them might even be
> sensible.

A counterexample could be a a JSON compresion scheme that uses a catalog
for a dictionary of keys. Hasn't this been described already? Also not
completely out of the question for GIS data, I think (Not sure if
PostGIS does this already.)

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services