On 15 November 2012 12:07, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 14 November 2012 22:17, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
To avoid complicating logic we store both, the toplevel and the subxids, in
-xip, first -xcnt toplevel ones, and then -subxcnt subxids.
That looks good,
On 14 November 2012 22:17, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
To avoid complicating logic we store both, the toplevel and the subxids, in
-xip, first -xcnt toplevel ones, and then -subxcnt subxids.
That looks good, not much change. Will apply in next few days. Please
add me as
On 2012-11-15 09:07:23 -0300, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 14 November 2012 22:17, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
To avoid complicating logic we store both, the toplevel and the subxids, in
-xip, first -xcnt toplevel ones, and then -subxcnt subxids.
That looks good, not much change.
To avoid complicating logic we store both, the toplevel and the subxids, in
-xip, first -xcnt toplevel ones, and then -subxcnt subxids.
Also skip logging any subxids if the snapshot is suboverflowed, they aren't
useful in that case anyway.
This allows to make some operations cheaper and it
