On 04.10.2011 09:43, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Simon Riggs<si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
I don't think this should use the rm_safe_restartpoint machinery. As you
said, it's not tied to any specific resource manager. And I've actually been
thinking that we will get rid of rm_safe_restartpoint altogether in the
future. The two things that still use it are the b-tree and gin, and I'd
like to change both of those to not require any post-recovery cleanup step
to finish multi-page operations, similar to what I did with GiST in 9.1.
I thought that was quite neat doing it that way, but there's no
specific reason to do it that way I guess. If you're happy to rewrite
the patch then I guess we're OK.
I certainly would like to get rid of rm_safe_restartpoint in the
longer term, hopefully sooner.
Though Heikki might be already working on that,...
Just haven't gotten around to it. It's a fair amount of work with little
user-visible benefit.
anyway,
the attached patch is the version which doesn't use rm_safe_restartpoint
machinery.
Thanks, committed.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
