Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > 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. No objection to that part. What I'm saying is that when there isn't one, the answer is a new record type, not forcing xid assignment. It might look almost like a commit record, but it shouldn't imply that there was a transaction. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers