Re: The enormous s->childXids problem

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Theo Schlossnagle <jesus(at)omniti(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: The enormous s->childXids problem
Date: 2006-09-17 00:34:29
Message-ID: 14816.1158453269@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> The real question is why does the subtransaction actually assign itself
>> an XID --- a simple RETURN NEXT operation ought not do that, AFAICS.

> I suspect the answer to that is the same as the answer to what's actually
> creating the subtransaction. plperl_return_next doesn't. I think something
> must be doing an actual SPI query, not just a return next.

The other question on the table is why it didn't respond to QueryCancel
in a reasonable amount of time. I'd really like to see a complete test
case for this problem ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-09-17 00:36:24 Re: Reducing data type space usage
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2006-09-17 00:29:49 Re: New version of money type