From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: advancing snapshot's xmin |
Date: | 2008-03-28 14:47:40 |
Message-ID: | 1206715660.4285.1675.camel@ebony.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 11:26 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 10:35 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > > The problem is that we always consider every transaction's PGPROC->xid
> > > in calculating MyProc->xmin. So if you have a long running
> > > transaction, it doesn't matter how far beyond the snapshots are -- the
> > > value returned by GetOldestXmin will always be at most the old
> > > transaction's Xid. Even if that transaction cannot see the old rows
> > > because all of its snapshots are way in the future.
> >
> > It may not have a TransactionId yet.
>
> How is this a problen? If it ever gets one, it will be in the future.
Yeh, that was my point. So the problem you mention mostly goes away.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference: http://www.postgresql.org.uk
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Suresh | 2008-03-28 14:54:03 | segfault in locking code |
Previous Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2008-03-28 14:44:57 | Re: Status of GIT mirror (Was having problem in rsync'ing cvs) |