On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I didn't like it; it seemed overly complicated (consider dealing with > XID wraparound),
We are talking about subtransactions here. I don't think we support subtransaction wrap-around, do we ? > and it would have problems with a slow transaction > generating a sparse set of subtransaction XIDs. I agree thats the worst case. But is that common ? Thats what I was thinking when I proposed the alternate solution. I thought that can happen only if most of the subtransactions abort, which again I thought is not a normal case. But frankly I am not sure if my assumption is correct. > I think getting rid of > the linear search will be enough to fix the performance problem. > I wonder if a skewed binary search would help more ? For example, if we know that the range of xids stored in the array is 1 to 1000 and if we are searching for a number closer to 1000, we can break the array into <large,small> parts instead of equal parts and then search. Well, may be I making simple things complicated ;-) Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
