On 2015-03-15 16:30:16 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> The attached patch does pretty much what you suggested above and tries
> to address all the point previously made. I plan to push this fairly
> soon; unless somebody has further input.
Pushed, after fixing two typos in decode.c I introduced whil
On 2015-03-02 18:45:18 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-03-02 19:23:56 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Pass the prepared XID as yet another argument to XactEmitCommitRecord, and
> > have XactEmitCommitRecord emit the xl_xact_commit_prepared part of the
> > record too. It might even make s
On 2015-03-02 19:23:56 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 03/02/2015 07:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >On 2015-03-02 19:11:15 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >>Come to think of it, it would be cleaner anyway to move the
> >>XLogBeginInsert() and XLogInsert() calls inside XactEmitCommitRecord.
On 03/02/2015 07:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-03-02 19:11:15 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Come to think of it, it would be cleaner anyway to move the
XLogBeginInsert() and XLogInsert() calls inside XactEmitCommitRecord. Then
those structs don't need to be static either.
That was my
On 2015-03-02 19:11:15 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Come to think of it, it would be cleaner anyway to move the
> XLogBeginInsert() and XLogInsert() calls inside XactEmitCommitRecord. Then
> those structs don't need to be static either.
That was my first thought as well - but it doesn't easi
On 03/02/2015 06:51 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-02-25 12:10:42 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-02-24 20:51:42 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Regarding XactEmitCommitRecord and XactEmitAbortRecord, I wonder if you
could pass an xl_xact_parsed/abort_commit struct to them, instead of th
On 2015-02-25 12:10:42 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-02-24 20:51:42 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Regarding XactEmitCommitRecord and XactEmitAbortRecord, I wonder if you
> > could pass an xl_xact_parsed/abort_commit struct to them, instead of the
> > individual fields? You could then
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> No, no. I meant that it is good the way your patch does it in
> xactdesc.c, where both frontend and backend can reach it.
Agreed, that seems much better than duplicating it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The En
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-02-27 16:26:08 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Andres Freund
>> wrote:
>> > On 2015-02-24 20:51:42 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> >> On 02/20/2015 05:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> >> >There's
On 2015-02-27 16:26:08 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2015-02-24 20:51:42 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> On 02/20/2015 05:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> >There's one bit that I'm not so sure about though: To avoid duplication
>
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-02-24 20:51:42 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> On 02/20/2015 05:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> >There's one bit that I'm not so sure about though: To avoid duplication
>> >I've added Parse(Commit/Abort)Record(), but unfortunately
Hi,
On 2015-02-24 20:51:42 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 02/20/2015 05:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >To avoid using more space in the compact case the 'xinfo' field
> >indicating the presence of further data is only included when a byte in
> >the xl_info flag is set (similar to what heap
On 24 February 2015 at 18:51, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 02/20/2015 05:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>> In the attached patch I've merged compact/noncompact code, made aborts
>> use similar logic to avoid including useless bytes and used both for the
>> 2pc equivalents.
>
>
> +1 for this appr
On 02/20/2015 05:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
In the attached patch I've merged compact/noncompact code, made aborts
use similar logic to avoid including useless bytes and used both for the
2pc equivalents.
+1 for this approach in general.
To avoid using more space in the compact case the 'xin
Hi,
Right now wal_level=logical implies that the compact commit record
format isn't used and similarly 2pc commits also include the non compact
format of commits.
In the course of the 'replication identifier' patch submitted to the
current commitfest I added more information to the non compact co
15 matches
Mail list logo
