Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> HS writes a WAL record for subtransactions at the point that the subxid
>> cache overflows for any single transaction. Current cache size = 64.
>> Top-level transaction then writes one additional WAL record every
>> additional 64 subxids after that. These are known as xid assignment
>> records.
> I don't recall seeing an answer to this, and I can't find one on the
> list archives either. Is it no longer an issue?
I'm still concerned about it, but realistically the subxids would be
writing other WAL records too, so it's probably not as bad as I thought
at first.
regards, tom lane