On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 18:52 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > Also, I can't help thinking that this would be a lot simpler if we just > treated all subtransactions the same as top-level transactions. The only > problem with that is that there can be a lot of subtransactions, which > means that we'd need a large UnobservedXids array to handle the worst > case, but maybe it would still be acceptable?
I remember cases on this list where long transactions did run out of subtransaction ids. To accommodate something approacing that we need an array for storing (max_connections * 4G ) UnobservedXids instead of just max_connections. ----------------- Hannu -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
