At Thu, 15 Sep 2022 17:39:17 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote in > I see your point but I am still worried due to the concern raised by > Horiguchi-San earlier in this thread that the total number could be as > large as TOTAL_MAX_CACHED_SUBXIDS. I think if we want to include > information only on the number of subxacts then that is clearly an > improvement without any disadvantage. > > Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter?
The doesn't seem to work for Sawada-san's case, but I'm fine with that:p Putting an arbitrary upper-bound on the number of subxids to print might work? I'm not sure how we can determine the upper-bound, though. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
