Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> writes:
> If we agree to never implement UNDO, there's a bunch of other code that
> could be removed.
Yeah, I've been thinking of going around and cleaning out the deadwood,
but beta is not the time for it.
> The commit xlog record also carries dropped table information, 12 bytes
> apiece (on 32 bit machines?).
Good point --- someone will eventually hit that case too, if we don't
increase the XLOG record size limit.
>>> Or we could assign an rmgr value to represent an "extension" record that
>>> is to be merged with a following "normal" record.
> I also think this is a good idea. Would it be generalized or only
> applicable to xl_xact_{commit,abort} records?
I was envisioning it as a general mechanism --- I see no point in
restricting it to commit/abort records. If anything it would take extra
code to restrict it to that case ...
regards, tom lane
