Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... Did we explicitly decide
>> to do this differently from spec, and if so why?
> Yeah, we did. I think the rationale was what happens when you have
> another savepoint in the middle, say
> SAVEPOINT foo;
> SAVEPOINT bar;
> SAVEPOINT foo;
Ah, right. I'm not in a huge hurry to change this, anyway ... it's not
like there aren't any number of other ways to run the system out of
locktable slots.
(I spent a bit of time thinking about whether we needed locktable
entries for subxacts at all, but I don't see how to preserve the
stop-waiting-on-subxact-abort behavior of XactLockTableWait without
them. We can't just wait on the subxact's topmost parent.)
regards, tom lane
