Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> On 9/13/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> You have apparently
>> decided to redefine the WAL record format as using one-based rather than
>> zero-based item offsets, which would be fine if any of the rest of the
>> code had been changed to agree ...
>>
>>
> I know Heikki changed that when he did the initial refactoring, but not
> sure why. May be he wanted to make it more consistent.
Yeah, I just checked the work-in-progress patch I sent you back in July.
I refactored it to use one-based offsets for consistency, since I
modified log_heap_clean quite heavily anyway.
It's possible that I broke it in the process, I was only interested in
testing the performance characteristics of the simplified pruning scheme.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com