Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> I would've liked to give freezing a new opcode, 
>>   but we've ran out of them (see htup.h).
> 
> Hardly ... we have plenty of unused rmgr id's still.

Good point.

> The real issue that still has to be resolved is the interaction of all
> this stuff with PITR scenarios --- is it still safe to not log hint-bit
> updates when PITR is on?  I think it's premature to start writing
> patches until we've decided how this really needs to work.

Not logging hint-bit updates seems safe to me. As long as we have the 
clog, the hint-bit is just a hint. The problem with freezing is that 
after freezing tuples, the corresponding clog page can go away.

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

• Re: WAL logging freezing at 2006-10-24 14:11:43 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: WAL logging freezing at 2006-10-27 16:01:12 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2006-10-27 16:01:12
	Subject: Re: WAL logging freezing
Previous:	From: Neil Conway	Date: 2006-10-27 15:10:59
	Subject: Re: bug in on_error_rollback !?

pgsql-patches by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2006-10-27 16:01:12
	Subject: Re: WAL logging freezing
Previous:	From: Neil Conway	Date: 2006-10-27 14:56:43
	Subject: Re: GUC description cleanup