"Pavan Deolasee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please see the revised patches attached.

I'm curious how much the WAL-recovery aspects of this patch have been
tested, because heap_xlog_clean seems quite broken.  You have apparently
decided to redefine the WAL record format as using one-based rather than
zero-based item offsets, which would be fine if any of the rest of the
code had been changed to agree ...

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to