Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Itagaki, would you like to take a stab at this?
Yes, I'll try to fix the mdsync problem. I'll separate this fix from LDC
patch. If we need to backport the fix to the back branches, a stand-alone
patch would be better.
In my understanding from the discussion, we'd better to take "cycle ID"
approach instead of "making a copy of pendingOpsTable", because duplicated
table is hard to debug and requires us to pay attention not to leak memories.
I'll adopt the cycle ID approach and build LDC on it as a separate patch.
Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center