Re: MultiXacts & WAL - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: MultiXacts & WAL
Date
Msg-id 9308.1150502996@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to MultiXacts & WAL  (paolo romano <paolo.romano@yahoo.it>)
Responses Re: MultiXacts & WAL  (paolo romano <paolo.romano@yahoo.it>)
List pgsql-hackers
paolo romano <paolo.romano@yahoo.it> writes:
> The point i am missing is the need to be able to completely recover
> multixacts offsets and members data. These carry information about
> current transactions holding shared locks on db tuples, which should
> not be essential for recovery purposes.

This might be optimizable if we want to assume that multixacts will never
be used for any purpose except holding locks, but that seems a bit short
sighted.  Is there any actually significant advantage to not logging
this information?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: paolo romano
Date:
Subject: MultiXacts & WAL
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: libpq Describe Extension [WAS: Bytea and perl]