On Dec20, 2010, at 07:16 , Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 19.12.2010 20:57, Florian Pflug wrote: >> If we reuse the legacy field xvac to store xlast, we don't get into >> trouble with binary upgrades either. We' need to find a way to deal >> with tuples where HEAP_MOVED_IN or HEAP_MOVED_OUT is set, but that >> seems manageable.. > > xvac shares the field with command id, and cid is in use while the tuple is > being updated.
Right :-( Well, that nails this coffin shut pretty tightly, unless we were willing to add another field to heap tuples. best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
