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
"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).
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
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Subtransactions are assigned regular
> XIDs as well, just like top-level transactions.
>
Ah, got it now. I never noticed this before.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
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 ab
"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 think
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 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
"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 bas
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
missin
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 t
"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
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 palloc/memcpy
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 c
(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 ge
15 matches
Mail list logo
