> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 10.06.2011 18:05, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> o There is no safeguard against actually wrapping around the
>>> SLRU, just the warning
>>
>> Any thoughts on what we should do instead? If someone holds open a
>> transaction long enough to burn through a billion transaction IDs
>> (or possibly less if someone uses a smaller BLCKSZ), should we
>> generate a FATAL error?
>
> FATAL is a bit harsh, ERROR seems more appropriate.
If we don't cancel the long-running transaction, don't we continue to
have a problem?
>> Do checks such as that argue for keeping the volatile flag, or do
>> you think we can drop it if we make those changes? (That would
>> also allow dropping a number of casts which exist just to avoid
>> warnings.)
>
> I believe we can drop it, I'll double-check.
I see you committed a patch for this, but there were some casts which
become unnecessary with that change that you missed. Patch attached
to clean up the ones I could spot.
-Kevin