Re: Suspicious behaviour on applying XLOG_HEAP2_VISIBLE.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
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 20:53:37
Message-ID: 30429.1460753617@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> 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.

No objection to that part. What I'm saying is that when there isn't one,
the answer is a new record type, not forcing xid assignment. It might
look almost like a commit record, but it shouldn't imply that there
was a transaction.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2016-04-15 21:08:20 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add new catalog called pg_init_privs
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2016-04-15 20:37:03 Re: Suspicious behaviour on applying XLOG_HEAP2_VISIBLE.