Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2016-06-30 12:51:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But doesn't the code stanza just above this loop pull that spillage
>> back in?
> If so, sure, it pulls changes back in, but only the first
> static const Size max_changes_in_memory = 4096;
> ones. We should never reconstruct a whole large transaction in memory...
OK, so the failure case is not "empty top level transaction", but
"top level transaction small enough to not have spilled", plus a
spilled subtransaction, correct?
regards, tom lane