Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> The easiest way to achieve that seems to be to just assign an xid if
>> that's the case; while it's not necessarily safe/efficient to do so at
>> the point the invalidation message was queued, I think it should be safe
>> to do so at commit time. Seems less invasive to backpatch than to either
>> support commit records without xids, or a separate record just
>> transporting invalidation messages.
> I agree that's better for back-patching. I hope it won't suck
> performance-wise. In master, we might think of inventing something
> new.
I'm a little worried about whether this will break assumptions that
vacuum doesn't have an XID. I don't immediately see how it would,
but it seems a bit shaky.
I find it hard to believe that the act of assigning an XID would add
measurably to the cost of a vacuum, so Robert's performance concern
doesn't sound very exciting. If this works, I think it's fine to
adopt as a permanent solution.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
