Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yep, patch attached. I also changed xactGetCommittedChildren to return
the original array instead of copying it, as Alvaro suggested.
Applied with minor corrections (mostly comment fixes, but there were
a couple of real mistakes).
This has been applied by Tom.
---
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Elsewhere in our codebase where we use arrays that are enlarged as
needed, we keep track of
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Elsewhere in our codebase where we use arrays that are enlarged as
needed, we keep track of the allocated size and the used size of the
array separately, and only call repalloc when the array fills up, and
repalloc a larger than
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep, patch attached. I also changed xactGetCommittedChildren to return
the original array instead of copying it, as Alvaro suggested.
Any comments on the flag based approach I suggested earlier ? Am I
missing some
Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep, patch attached. I also changed xactGetCommittedChildren to return
the original array instead of copying it, as Alvaro suggested.
Any comments on the flag based approach
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't like it; it seemed overly complicated (consider dealing with
XID wraparound),
We are talking about subtransactions here. I don't think we support
subtransaction wrap-around, do we ?
and it would have problems with
Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and it would have problems with a slow transaction
generating a sparse set of subtransaction XIDs.
I agree thats the worst case. But is that common ? Thats what I
was thinking when I
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
Wait. Subtransaction ids are local to a transaction and always start from 1.
See this:
/*
* reinitialize within-transaction counters
*/
s-subTransactionId = TopSubTransactionId;
currentSubTransactionId = TopSubTransactionId;
No, we're not talking
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't like it; it seemed overly complicated (consider dealing with
XID wraparound),
We are talking about subtransactions here. I don't think we support
subtransaction wrap-around, do we ?
Imagine
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Imagine that you start a transaction just before transaction
wrap-around, so that the top level XID is 2^31-10. Then you start 20
subtransactions. What XIDs will they get? Now how would you map those to
a
(moved to pgsql-patches, as there's a patch attached)
Tom Lane wrote:
Getting rid of the linked-list representation would be a win in a couple
of ways --- we'd not need the bogus list of XIDs support in pg_list.h,
and xactGetCommittedChildren would go away. OTOH AtSubCommit_childXids
would get
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(moved to pgsql-patches, as there's a patch attached)
I couldn't let this case go, so I wrote a patch. I replaced the linked
list with an array that's enlarged at AtSubCommit_childXids when necessary.
We can
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I couldn't let this case go, so I wrote a patch. I replaced the linked
list with an array that's enlarged at AtSubCommit_childXids when
necessary.
Do you still need to palloc the return value from
xactGetCommittedChildren? Perhaps you can save the
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I initially thought that using a single palloc'd array to hold all the
XIDs would introduce a new limit on the number committed
subtransactions, thanks to MaxAllocSize, but that's not the case.
Without patch, we actually allocate an array like
14 matches
Mail list logo
