On June 30, 2016 9:59:07 AM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> On 2016-06-30 12:51:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> But doesn't the code stanza just above this loop pull that spillage
>>> back in?
>
>> If so, sure, it pulls changes back in, but only the first
>> static const Size max_changes_in_memory = 4096;
>> ones. We should never reconstruct a whole large transaction in
>memory...
>
>OK, so the failure case is not "empty top level transaction", but
>"top level transaction small enough to not have spilled", plus a
>spilled subtransaction, correct?
That's how it looks from afar, without having investigated in depth.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
