Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > Any idea how to cheat our way out of that one given the current way
> > heap_freeze_tuple() works (running on both primary and standby)? My only
> > idea was to MultiXactIdWait() if !InRecovery but that's extremly grotty.
> > We can't even realistically create a new multixact with fewer members
> > with the current format of xl_heap_freeze.
> Maybe we should just bite the bullet and change the WAL format for
> heap_freeze (inventing an all-new record type, not repurposing the old
> one, and allowing WAL replay to continue to accept the old one). The
> implication for users would be that they'd have to update slave servers
> before the master when installing the update; which is unpleasant, but
> better than living with a known data corruption case.
That was my suggestion too (modulo, I admit, the bit about it being a
new, separate record type.)
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: