On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:55:53AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> 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.
You could hardcode it so as it does not blow up the whole view, say
20~30. Anyway, I agree with the concern raised upthread about the
amount of extra data this would add to the output, so having at least
the number of subxids would be better than the existing state of
things telling only if the list of overflowed. So let's stick to
that.
Here is another idea for the list of subxids: show the full list of
subxids only when using --xid. We could always introduce an extra
switch, but that does not seem worth the extra workload here.
--
Michael
