Thank you for the feed-back. In fact the risk seems neglibible, but it means that at least I'm not misunderstanding
whatthat code does...<br /><br /><br /><b><i>Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us></i></b> ha scritto: <blockquote
class="replbq"style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> paolo romano
writes:<br/>> My doubts now concern MultixactID wrap-around management. <br />> Afaics, it is possible to spawn
multixactidsso quickly to have a<br />> wrap-around and to start overwriting the data stored in the offset<br />>
slru(but analogous considerations apply to the member slru as<br />> well).<br /><br />I looked into this when the
multixactcode was written. There is a<br />theoretical risk but I think it's entirely theoretical. MXIDs are<br
/>unlikelyto be consumed faster than XIDs over the long term, and also<br />can be recycled sooner. So you'd run up
againstXID wraparound (which<br />we do defend against) first.<br /><br /> regards, tom lane<br /></blockquote><br
/><p>Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! <br />
http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
