Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at> writes:
> I don't see too much of a difference between #1 (an on-disk structure
> buffered in shared memory) and #2 (a shared memory structure spilling
> to disk).
If you stand back that far, maybe you can't see a difference ;-) ...
but the proposal on the table was for an extremely special-purpose
on-disk structure. I'd prefer to see first if we can solve a more
general problem, namely the fixed size of the existing lock table.
It's certainly possible that that idea won't work out, but if it can be
done for a similar time investment as the special-purpose log would
take, it'd be a win.
regards, tom lane