Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 21:59 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
>>> I think if I had not made those into procs you would have said that they
>>> are so similar it would aid code readability to have them be the same.
>> And in fact I suggested earlier that we get rid of the unobserved xids
>> array, and only use recovery procs.
>
> Last week, I think. Why are these tweaks so important?
Heh, actually, I went searching my mail for when I had suggested that,
and found that in fact I proposed this exact same method of using the
unobserved xids array only back in October:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/48F76342.5070407@enterprisedb.com
I had since forgotten all about, but now came up with the same idea
again during review.
In the first reply in that thread you said that "The main problem is
fatal errors that don't write abort records. By reusing the PROC entries
we can keep those to a manageable limit". We're not worried about that
anymore.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
