| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Deriving Recovery Snapshots |
| Date: | 2008-10-23 05:05:32 |
| Message-ID: | 1224738332.27145.582.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 21:47 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> But once you reach 64 transactions, you'll need to write an extra WAL
> record for every subtransaction, which currently I've managed to avoid.
Yes, I've managed to avoid it, but it will simplify the patch if you
think its not worth bothering with. This won't really effect anybody
I've met running straight Postgres, but it may effect EDB. It's not a
problem for me, but I was second guessing objections.
If I do that then I can just pass the slotId in full on every WAL
record, which simplifies a couple of other things also.
So, does everybody accept that we will write a WAL record for every
subtransaction assigned, once we hit the size limit of the subxid cache?
i.e. currently 65th subxid and beyond.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-10-23 05:06:11 | Re: psql Feature request \set query |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-10-23 04:57:57 | Re: Deriving Recovery Snapshots |