On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> Le 3/15/12 5:04 AM, Selcuk AYA a écrit :
>
>> Lets continue the discussion here. I got this email at my 6AM. I was
>> planning to take a look at the code and refresh my memory before
>> replying and I can do that while I am at home only.
Le 3/15/12 5:04 AM, Selcuk AYA a écrit :
Lets continue the discussion here. I got this email at my 6AM. I was
planning to take a look at the code and refresh my memory before
replying and I can do that while I am at home only. That is why it
took some time to reply. Next time please allow me some
Lets continue the discussion here. I got this email at my 6AM. I was
planning to take a look at the code and refresh my memory before
replying and I can do that while I am at home only. That is why it
took some time to reply. Next time please allow me sometime to reply
to your emails.
First thing
We already have code to read log records and we do not need a type in
log edits. We do not call this yet as we do not do crash recovery yet.
I saw you already committed some changes for this without waiting for
a reply. Please revert your latest commit.
thanks
Selcuk
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:10
Hi,
as i'm reviewing the way we manage the WAL (Write Ahead Log), I have a
few questions :
1) UserLogRecord
It's a data structure encapsulating an opaque byte[] containing a
serialized form of a record. We have two length, the serialized data
length, and the buffer length (which might be wi
