Hello, Peter.
Thanks for your explanation. One of the reasons I was asking - is an idea
to use the same technique in the "LP_DEAD index hint bits on standby" WIP
patch to reduce the amount of additional WAL.
Now I am sure such optimization should work correctly.
Thanks,
Michail.
On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 3:22 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Of course, it's possible that the question of whether or not it's
> worth it has been misjudged for any given case. And maybe these
> particular WAL records are one such case where somebody got it wrong,
> affecting a real workload (I am igno
On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 8:00 AM Michail Nikolaev
wrote:
> Working on some stuff, I realized I do not understand why
> latestRemovedXid|cuteoff_xid (in different types of WAL records) are
> sent every time they appear on the primary side.
>
> latestRemovedXid|cuteoff_xid is used to call
> ResolveRec
Hello, hackers.
Working on some stuff, I realized I do not understand why
latestRemovedXid|cuteoff_xid (in different types of WAL records) are
sent every time they appear on the primary side.
latestRemovedXid|cuteoff_xid is used to call
ResolveRecoveryConflictWithSnapshot and cancel conflicting b
