On December 5, 2017 10:01:43 AM PST, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: >Andres, > >* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: >> I think it makes a fair bit of sense to not do the current crufty >> tracking of xid epochs. I don't really how we got there, but it >doesn't >> make terribly much sense. Don't think we need additional WAL logging >> though - we should be able to piggyback this onto the already >existing >> clog logging.
> >Don't you mean xact logging? ;) No. We log a WAL record at clog boundaries. Wraparounds have to be at one. We could just include the 64 bit xid there and would have reliable tracking. Andres -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
