Pavan Deolasee wrote: > On 9/13/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 ... >> >> > I know Heikki changed that when he did the initial refactoring, but not > sure why. May be he wanted to make it more consistent.
Yeah, I just checked the work-in-progress patch I sent you back in July. I refactored it to use one-based offsets for consistency, since I modified log_heap_clean quite heavily anyway. It's possible that I broke it in the process, I was only interested in testing the performance characteristics of the simplified pruning scheme. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
