"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> That sounds like it can eat through your shared memory very quickly
>> if you have a lot of subtransactions.
> Hmmm.... I've never explicitly used subtransactions, so I don't tend
> to think of them routinely going too deep. And the struct is pretty
> small.
That assumption is absolutely, totally not going to fly.
>> Why not use SubTransGetTopmostTransaction() ?
> This needs to work when the xid of a transaction is found in the MVCC
> data of a tuple for any overlapping serializable transaction -- even
> if that transaction has completed and its connection has been
> closed. It didn't look to me like SubTransGetTopmostTransaction()
> would work after the transaction was gone.
Yes, it should work. If it doesn't, you are failing to manage the
TransactionXmin horizon correctly.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
