On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.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.
Heikki - I see you are down on the CF app to review this. I'd been working on it as well, just forgot to let Greg know. Did you start already? Should I stop? -- 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
