On December 5, 2017 10:01:43 AM PST, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>Andres,
>
>* Andres Freund (andres@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
andwould have reliable tracking.
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.