On Dec20, 2010, at 07:16 , Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 19.12.2010 20:57, Florian Pflug wrote:
>> If we reuse the legacy field xvac to store xlast, we don't get into
>> trouble with binary upgrades either. We' need to find a way to deal
>> with tuples where HEAP_MOVED_IN or HEAP_MOVED_OUT is set, but that
>> seems manageable..
>
> xvac shares the field with command id, and cid is in use while the tuple is being updated.
Right :-(
Well, that nails this coffin shut pretty tightly, unless we were willing to add
another field to heap tuples.
best regards,
Florian Pflug
