On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 21:37 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Am I missing anything?
Will review.
> I also experimented with including the running-xacts information in the
> checkpoint record itself. That somehow feels more straightforward to me,
> but it wasn't really any less code, and it wouldn't allow us to do the
> running-xacts snapshot as multiple WAL records, so the current approach
> with separate running-xacts record is better.
Agreed, more modular.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
