Re: MultiXacts & WAL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: paolo romano <paolo(dot)romano(at)yahoo(dot)it>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: MultiXacts & WAL
Date: 2006-06-17 00:09:56
Message-ID: 9308.1150502996@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

paolo romano <paolo(dot)romano(at)yahoo(dot)it> writes:
> The point i am missing is the need to be able to completely recover
> multixacts offsets and members data. These carry information about
> current transactions holding shared locks on db tuples, which should
> not be essential for recovery purposes.

This might be optimizable if we want to assume that multixacts will never
be used for any purpose except holding locks, but that seems a bit short
sighted. Is there any actually significant advantage to not logging
this information?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-06-17 00:21:21 Re: libpq Describe Extension [WAS: Bytea and perl]
Previous Message paolo romano 2006-06-16 23:35:46 MultiXacts & WAL