On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Leonardo Francalanci <m_li...@yahoo.it> wrote: >> With regards to the naming, I think it would be better if we kept >> XLOG_XACT_COMMIT record exactly as it is now, and make the second >> record an entirely new record called XLOG_XACT_COMMIT_FASTPATH. That >> way we retain backwards compatibility. >> >> If you'd like to rework like that please, otherwise I can take it from >> here if you'd like. > > > I think I did it; while doing it, I think I've found a bug: I didn't update > "recoveryStopsHere". Please double check that, as I really don't > know what I'm doing there... > Should I also change the struct name from xl_xact_commit to > xl_xact_commit_fast_path?
Yes please. >> > How can I test it with "weird" stuff as subtransactions, shared >> > cache invalidation messages...? >> >> make installcheck should cover those. > > > Ok, all tests passed. Even better. Will review, thanks. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers