| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2016-04-18 13:18:51 |
| Message-ID: | 20160418131851.psnlgounsoozy5r2@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-04-18 20:43:30 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yeah, introducing a new WAL record to address this issue in
> back-branches would not be an issue, and that's what we should do. For
> HEAD, let's add that in the commit record.
I'm not sure why/how you'd do it that way in HEAD? I mean the only
reason not to use a separate record is the standby incompatibility.
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-18 13:41:28 | Re: snapshot too old, configured by time |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-04-18 13:17:51 | Re: Suspicious behaviour on applying XLOG_HEAP2_VISIBLE. |