Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> The easiest way to achieve that seems to be to just assign an xid if >> that's the case; while it's not necessarily safe/efficient to do so at >> the point the invalidation message was queued, I think it should be safe >> to do so at commit time. Seems less invasive to backpatch than to either >> support commit records without xids, or a separate record just >> transporting invalidation messages.
> I agree that's better for back-patching. I hope it won't suck > performance-wise. In master, we might think of inventing something > new. I'm a little worried about whether this will break assumptions that vacuum doesn't have an XID. I don't immediately see how it would, but it seems a bit shaky. I find it hard to believe that the act of assigning an XID would add measurably to the cost of a vacuum, so Robert's performance concern doesn't sound very exciting. If this works, I think it's fine to adopt as a permanent solution. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers