Simon Riggs wrote:
> I think my proposal still holds water, but I also think it is probably
> time to say OK, let's make this simpler and take the subxid tuning off
> line.
Agreed.
> We would need to increase the max size of the xip array by
> 2*max_connections. So an increase of 80kB on normal running, which I can
> accept.
You only need the bigger xip array while in hot standby mode. Backends
starting after the recovery is done can use just max_connections. And
you were already allocating a bigger subxip array, so the net effect is nil.
> Is that the only change you are suggesting to resolve this? I hope so.
Yes.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
