Simon Riggs wrote: > On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 11:54 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> Simon Riggs wrote: >> * Are you planning to remove the recovery_connections setting before >> release? The documentation makes it sound like it's a temporary hack >> that we're not really sure is needed at all. That's not very comforting. > > It has been requested and I agree, so its there. Saying it might be > removed in future is no more than we do elsewhere and AFAIK we all hope > it will be. Not sure why that is or isn't comforting.
Now that recovery_connections has a double-role, and does in the master what the wal_standby_info used to do, the documentation probably should be clarified that the whole parameter is not going to go away, just the role in the master. >> * You removed this comment from KnownAssignedXidsInit: >> >> - /* >> - * XXX: We should check that we don't exceed maxKnownAssignedXids. >> - * Even though the hash table might hold a few more entries than that, >> - * we use fixed-size arrays of that size elsewhere and expected all >> - * entries in the hash table to fit. >> - */ >> >> but AFAICS you didn't address the issue. It's referring to the 'xids' >> array in TransactionIdIsInProgress(), which KnownAssignedXidsGet() fills >> in without checking that it fits. > > I have ensured that they are always the same size, by definition, so no > need to check. How did you ensure that? The hash table has no hard size limit. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
