| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Deriving Recovery Snapshots |
| Date: | 2008-10-22 10:18:56 |
| Message-ID: | 1224670736.8473.3.camel@huvostro |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 18:52 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> Also, I can't help thinking that this would be a lot simpler if we just
> treated all subtransactions the same as top-level transactions. The only
> problem with that is that there can be a lot of subtransactions, which
> means that we'd need a large UnobservedXids array to handle the worst
> case, but maybe it would still be acceptable?
I remember cases on this list where long transactions did run out of
subtransaction ids. To accommodate something approacing that we need an
array for storing (max_connections * 4G ) UnobservedXids instead of just
max_connections.
-----------------
Hannu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martin Pihlak | 2008-10-22 10:59:11 | Re: Withdraw PL/Proxy from commitfest |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2008-10-22 10:14:54 | Re: Withdraw PL/Proxy from commitfest |