I wrote:
> When preparing to deal with a new statement:
> - acquire lockX
> - if not a superuser
> - and not in an active transaction
> - and countX >= max_active_transactions
> - place current process at tail of waitX queue, and block
> - (lockX would be released while blocked)
> - increment countX
> - release lockX
There's a bug there already. This should be better:- if not in an active transaction- acquire lockX- if not a
superuser- and countX >= max_active_transactions- place current process at tail of waitX queue, and block-
(lockXwould be released while blocked)- increment countX- release lockX
-Kevin
