Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 21:47 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> But once you reach 64 transactions, you'll need to write an extra WAL
>> record for every subtransaction, which currently I've managed to avoid.
>
> Yes, I've managed to avoid it, but it will simplify the patch if you
> think its not worth bothering with. This won't really effect anybody
> I've met running straight Postgres, but it may effect EDB. It's not a
> problem for me, but I was second guessing objections.
>
> If I do that then I can just pass the slotId in full on every WAL
> record, which simplifies a couple of other things also.
>
> So, does everybody accept that we will write a WAL record for every
> subtransaction assigned, once we hit the size limit of the subxid cache?
> i.e. currently 65th subxid and beyond.
Would have to see the patch to understand what the code simplicity vs.
extra WAL logging tradeoff really is.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com