Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> With regards to the naming, I think it would be better if we kept
>> XLOG_XACT_COMMIT record exactly as it is now, and make the second
>> record an entirely new record called XLOG_XACT_COMMIT_FASTPATH. That
>> way we retain backwards compatibility.
> I liked your previous suggestion of commit and commit-with-info
> better. There's nothing particularly fast about this; it's just less
> info. So to speak.
Yes. There is no need to preserve backwards compatibility here, so
let's just design the records in a way that makes sense on its own.
regards, tom lane