| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Read Uncommitted |
| Date: | 2008-05-26 19:32:20 |
| Message-ID: | 1211830340.4489.82.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2008-05-26 at 13:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net> writes:
> > On Mon, 2008-05-26 at 16:55 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> If the data in a table never changes, why would VACUUM or HOT need to touch
> >> it? The use case isn't clear to me.
>
> > I guess the use-case is about a long read-write transaction doing
> > read-only access to an update-only table and thus blocking vacuum on
> > other tables.
>
> ... in which case the proposed kluge would result in unstable,
> unpredictable answers, so there is still no plausible use-case.
Separate databases?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2008-05-26 19:45:47 | Re: Help with new contrib |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-26 19:08:35 | Re: Read Uncommitted |