Re: bug of recovery?

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I don't think this should use the rm_safe_restartpoint machinery. As you
>> said, it's not tied to any specific resource manager. And I've actually been
>> thinking that we will get rid of rm_safe_restartpoint altogether in the
>> future. The two things that still use it are the b-tree and gin, and I'd
>> like to change both of those to not require any post-recovery cleanup step
>> to finish multi-page operations, similar to what I did with GiST in 9.1.
>
> I thought that was quite neat doing it that way, but there's no
> specific reason to do it that way I guess. If you're happy to rewrite
> the patch then I guess we're OK.
>
> I certainly would like to get rid of rm_safe_restartpoint in the
> longer term, hopefully sooner.

Though Heikki might be already working on that,... anyway,
the attached patch is the version which doesn't use rm_safe_restartpoint
machinery.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center