From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SSI patch version 14 |
Date: | 2011-01-25 18:41:10 |
Message-ID: | 1295980870.11513.346.camel@jdavis |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 09:41 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Yep. For the visual thinkers out there, the whole concept can be
> understood by looking at the jpeg file that's in the Wiki page:
>
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/images/e/eb/Serialization-Anomalies-in-Snapshot-Isolation.png
Yes, that helped a lot throughout the review process. Good job keeping
it up-to-date!
> Yes, that would work. It would lower one type of overhead a little
> and allow RO transactions to be released from SSI tracking earlier.
> The question is how to determine it without taking too much time
> scanning the finished transaction list for every active read write
> transaction every time you start a RO transaction. I don't think
> that it's a trivial enough issue to consider for 9.1; it's certainly
> one to put on the list to look at for 9.2.
It's OK to leave it to 9.2. But if it's a RO deferrable transaction,
it's just going to go to sleep in that case anyway; so why not look for
an opportunity to get a safe snapshot right away?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Richard Broersma | 2011-01-25 19:08:35 | Re: [HACKERS] Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2011-01-25 18:40:22 | Re: Change pg_last_xlog_receive_location not to move backwards |