On 2016-04-15 15:26:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think the bottom line is that we misdesigned the WAL representation
> by assuming that this sort of info could always be piggybacked on a
> transaction commit record. It's time to fix that.
I think we got to piggyback it onto a commit record, as long as there's
one. Otherwise it's going to be more complex (queuing messages when
reading an inval record) and slower (more wal records). I can easily
develop a patch for that, the question is what we do on the back
branches...
Greetings,
Andres Freund