On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote:

> Making pg_multixact persistent across clean shutdowns is no bridge to cross
> lightly, since it means committing to an on-disk format for an indefinite
> period.  We should do it; the benefits of this patch justify it, and I haven't
> identified a way to avoid it without incurring worse problems.

I can't actually see anything in the patch that explains why this is
required. (That is something we should reject more patches on, since
it creates a higher maintenance burden).

Can someone explain? We might think of a way to avoid that.

 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to