> On 18 Nov 2025, at 23:54, Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Are you arguing that the xl_btree_split record should include the cycleid?
Yes.
> I see that systems that are built on this architecture do something
> along these lines:
> https://github.com/neondatabase/postgres/commit/a9b92820c5d14dbff8f59ab65ffdaae92ab9c3c8
Thanks for the link. This solution seems surprisingly complicated.
> However, that seems well out of scope for core Postgres. At least for
> the foreseeable future.
Yes, I agree. It's just a case when redo routines do not match original
execution, and it seemed interesting to me. I understand that for core Postgres
it's extra overhead in WAL record only for a beautification.
Thanks!
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
