On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote:
> Making pg_multixact persistent across clean shutdowns is no bridge to cross > lightly, since it means committing to an on-disk format for an indefinite > period. We should do it; the benefits of this patch justify it, and I haven't > identified a way to avoid it without incurring worse problems. I can't actually see anything in the patch that explains why this is required. (That is something we should reject more patches on, since it creates a higher maintenance burden). Can someone explain? We might think of a way to avoid that. -- 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
