At Thu, 15 Sep 2022 17:39:17 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote in
> I see your point but I am still worried due to the concern raised by
> Horiguchi-San earlier in this thread that the total number could be as
> large as TOTAL_MAX_CACHED_SUBXIDS. I think if we want to include
> information only on the number of subxacts then that is clearly an
> improvement without any disadvantage.
>
> Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter?
The doesn't seem to work for Sawada-san's case, but I'm fine with
that:p
Putting an arbitrary upper-bound on the number of subxids to print
might work? I'm not sure how we can determine the upper-bound, though.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
