On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Gokulakannan Somasundaram escribió: > >> Actually this problem is present even in today's transaction id scenario and >> the only way we avoid is by using freezing. Can we use a similar approach? >> This freezing should mean that we are freezing the sub-transaction in order >> to avoid the sub-transaction wrap around failure. > > This would mean we would have to go over the data inserted by the > subtransaction and mark it as "subxact frozen". Some sort of sub-vacuum > if you will (because it obviously needs to work inside a transaction). > Doesn't sound real workable to me.
Especially because the XID consumed by the sub-transaction would still be consumed, advancing the global XID counter. Reclaiming the XIDs after the fact doesn't fix anything as far as I can see. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
