> Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 10.06.2011 18:05, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >>> o There is no safeguard against actually wrapping around the >>> SLRU, just the warning >> >> Any thoughts on what we should do instead? If someone holds open a >> transaction long enough to burn through a billion transaction IDs >> (or possibly less if someone uses a smaller BLCKSZ), should we >> generate a FATAL error? > > FATAL is a bit harsh, ERROR seems more appropriate. If we don't cancel the long-running transaction, don't we continue to have a problem? >> Do checks such as that argue for keeping the volatile flag, or do >> you think we can drop it if we make those changes? (That would >> also allow dropping a number of casts which exist just to avoid >> warnings.) > > I believe we can drop it, I'll double-check. I see you committed a patch for this, but there were some casts which become unnecessary with that change that you missed. Patch attached to clean up the ones I could spot. -Kevin
ssi-nocast-1.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
