Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2016-04-15 15:26:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think the bottom line is that we misdesigned the WAL representation
>> by assuming that this sort of info could always be piggybacked on a
>> transaction commit record. It's time to fix that.
> I think we got to piggyback it onto a commit record, as long as there's
> one.
No objection to that part. What I'm saying is that when there isn't one,
the answer is a new record type, not forcing xid assignment. It might
look almost like a commit record, but it shouldn't imply that there
was a transaction.
regards, tom lane
