On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 18:52 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> Also, I can't help thinking that this would be a lot simpler if we just
> treated all subtransactions the same as top-level transactions. The only
> problem with that is that there can be a lot of subtransactions, which
> means that we'd need a large UnobservedXids array to handle the worst
> case, but maybe it would still be acceptable?
I remember cases on this list where long transactions did run out of
subtransaction ids. To accommodate something approacing that we need an
array for storing (max_connections * 4G ) UnobservedXids instead of just
max_connections.
-----------------
Hannu