OK, removed.
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Store only active XIDs in subtransaction cache
> >>
> >> Per my note just now, this probably should wait for 8.3.
>
> >
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Store only active XIDs in subtransaction cache
>>
>> Per my note just now, this probably should wait for 8.3.
> OK, added to TODO.
Actually, I realized this morning that there isn't anything there that
the current code doesn't do al
Tom Lane wrote:
> There are several entries on the 8.2 open-items list that I think can be
> removed:
>
> Fix backward array comparison - subset
>
> Done (this was redundant with the containment-operator item)
OK, that wasn't clear to me.
> Store only active XIDs in subtransaction c
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I changed the locking thing I was worried about. Unless Greg wants to
> do some real-world performance measurements to confirm or refute that
> change, I think this can be closed.
I could do some if you're curious but my feeling is that the conservative
ch
There are several entries on the 8.2 open-items list that I think can be
removed:
Fix backward array comparison - subset
Done (this was redundant with the containment-operator item)
Store only active XIDs in subtransaction cache
Per my note just now, this probably should wait fo
