Re: [BUGS] server crash in very big transaction [postgresql

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 11:21:49AM +1000, Gavin Sherry wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Or we could assign an rmgr value to represent an "extension" record that
>>> is to be merged with a following "normal" record. This is kinda klugy
>>> but would avoid wasting bits on xl_len in the vast majority of records.
>>> Also we'd not have to force an initdb since the file format would
>>> remain upward-compatible.
>>
>> This is a better idea, I think, as it avoids the problems above and, as
>> you say, will be binary compatible.

> I also think this is a good idea. Would it be generalized or only
> applicable to xl_xact_{commit,abort} records?

After looking into this I've decided that it's not very practical --- it
would require major rewriting of XLogInsert, which I'm disinclined to do
at this stage of the beta cycle. Widening the xl_len field seems much
safer. It's not really an initdb-forcing change anyway; all you need to
do to upgrade an existing 8.0beta1 installation is run pg_resetxlog
(assuming you shut down the old postmaster cleanly).

regards, tom lane