| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Suspicious behaviour on applying XLOG_HEAP2_VISIBLE. |
| Date: | 2016-04-15 20:19:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20160415201957.axg47zfktng53wzx@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-04-15 15:26:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think the bottom line is that we misdesigned the WAL representation
> by assuming that this sort of info could always be piggybacked on a
> transaction commit record. It's time to fix that.
I think we got to piggyback it onto a commit record, as long as there's
one. Otherwise it's going to be more complex (queuing messages when
reading an inval record) and slower (more wal records). I can easily
develop a patch for that, the question is what we do on the back
branches...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-04-15 20:37:03 | Re: Suspicious behaviour on applying XLOG_HEAP2_VISIBLE. |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-04-15 20:15:37 | Re: more parallel query documentation |