From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] 2PC state files on shared memory |
Date: | 2009-08-10 06:45:22 |
Message-ID: | 18854.1249886722@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> After making a lot of tests, state file size is not more than 600B.
> In some cases, it reached a maximum of size of 712B and I used such
> transactions in my tests.
I can only say that that demonstrates you didn't test very many cases.
It is trivial to generate enormous state files --- try something with
a lot of subtransactions, for example, or a lot of files created or
deleted. I remain of the opinion that asking users to estimate the
amount of shared memory needed for this patch will cripple its
usability. We learned that lesson the hard way for FSM, I see no
reason we have to fail to learn from experience.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Albe Laurenz | 2009-08-10 06:54:37 | Re: Split-up ECPG patches |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-10 06:26:33 | Re: pgsql: Ship documentation without intermediate tarballs Documentation |