On 2016-04-15 15:26:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I think the bottom line is that we misdesigned the WAL representation > by assuming that this sort of info could always be piggybacked on a > transaction commit record. It's time to fix that.
I think we got to piggyback it onto a commit record, as long as there's one. Otherwise it's going to be more complex (queuing messages when reading an inval record) and slower (more wal records). I can easily develop a patch for that, the question is what we do on the back branches... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
