"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Please see the revised patches attached.
I'm curious how much the WAL-recovery aspects of this patch have been
tested, because heap_xlog_clean seems quite broken. You have apparently
decided to redefine the WAL record format as using one-based rather than
zero-based item offsets, which would be fine if any of the rest of the
code had been changed to agree ...
regards, tom lane