Re: Suspicious behaviour on applying XLOG_HEAP2_VISIBLE.

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> In my understanding we have two choices for this bug

> 1) assign an xid so it forces sending a message (message plus xid)
> 2) send a message without assigning an xid (message only)

> (1) seems like it is worse for backpatching, IMHO, though I am willing to
> hear other thoughts or options

The problem with (1) is that it creates side-effects that could be bad;
Robert's already pointed out one close-to-show-stopper consequence,
and I have little confidence that there are not others.  In general,
if we got here without assigning an xid, there's a reason.

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.
        regards, tom lane