On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 08:40 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > 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.
Well, if your not certain now, then my initial feeling was correct. I don't think everybody would agree to that. The code simplification would be real, but I don't think it's that hard now. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
