Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 11 May 2015 at 22:20, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote:
>> So the lesson here is that having a permanent pg_multixact is not nice,
>> and we should get rid of it. Here's how to do that:
> An alternate proposal:
> 1. Store only the Locking xids in the Members SLRU
> 2. In the Offsets SLRU store: 1) the Updating Xid and 2) the offset to the
> Locking xids in the Members SLRU.
> This means the Offsets SLRU will be around twice the size it was before BUT
> since we reduce the size of each Members array by one, there is a balanced
> saving there, so this change is disk-space-neutral.
> That way if we need to make Offsets SLRU persistent it won't bloat.
> We then leave the Members SLRU as non-persistent, just as it was <9.3
I don't think you can do that, because it supposes that locking XIDs need
not be remembered across a crash. Don't prepared transactions break that
assumption?
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
