On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 21:37 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Am I missing anything?
Will review. > I also experimented with including the running-xacts information in the > checkpoint record itself. That somehow feels more straightforward to me, > but it wasn't really any less code, and it wouldn't allow us to do the > running-xacts snapshot as multiple WAL records, so the current approach > with separate running-xacts record is better. Agreed, more modular. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
