Sent from my iPad
On 13-Feb-2013, at 18:21, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote
>
>
> Heikki was talking about a generic WAL record type that would just
> store a binary delta between the version of the block when it was
> locked and when it was unlocked. That would handle any extension
> cleanly as far as data modification goes as long as the extension was
> working through our buffer manager. It seems like an attractive idea
> to me.
>
>
How do we handle the case you mentioned, maybe a module that has been removed since a record was made? Is the solution
thatwe encapsulate WAL from those kind of changes, and keep the WAL records same for everyone,irrespective whether they
usean external module or not(I inferred this from Heikki's idea,or am I missing something here?)
Atri
