2010/6/30 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> You need to make sure not only that you replay commit records in >> order, but also that, for example, you don't replay an >> XLOG_HEAP2_CLEAN record too early. > > Hm, good point. That probably means that you *do* need fencepost > records, and furthermore that you might need an interlock to ensure that > you get the fencepost in early enough on the other stream. Ugh --- > there goes your concurrency. > > What about having a single WAL stream for all commit records (thereby > avoiding any possible xact-serialization funnies) and other WAL records > divided up among multiple streams in some fashion or other? A commit > record would bear minimum-LSN pointers for all the streams that its > transaction had written to. Things like HEAP_CLEAN records would bear > minimum-LSN pointers for the commit stream. Workable?
I don't see why not. Of course, the performance of any of these ideas is another question altogether... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
