On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2016-04-14 11:50:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> > We've recently discussed a very similar issue around >> > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160227002958.peftvmcx4dxwe...@alap3.anarazel.de >> > >> > Unfortunately Simon over in that thread disagreed there about fixing >> > this by always emitting a commit record when nmsgs > 0 in >> > RecordTransactionCommit(). I think this thread is a pretty strong hint >> > that we actually should do so. >> >> Yes. I'm pretty confident that you had the right idea there, and that >> Simon's objection was off-base. > > The easiest way to achieve that seems to be to just assign an xid if > that's the case; while it's not necessarily safe/efficient to do so at > the point the invalidation message was queued, I think it should be safe > to do so at commit time. Seems less invasive to backpatch than to either > support commit records without xids, or a separate record just > transporting invalidation messages.
I agree that's better for back-patching. I hope it won't suck performance-wise. In master, we might think of inventing something new. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
