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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
