| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Lazy xid assignment V4 |
| Date: | 2007-09-05 16:56:03 |
| Message-ID: | 18702.1189011363@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Florian G. Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> However, none of these are very strong reasons - certainly weaker than
> doing what ensures to cause the least confusion. I'm therefore
> starting to think that we should remove transaction, and keep the name
> virtualtransaction for the VXID. That will ensure that clients who
> *do* rely on pg_locks and the "transaction" column (which will be few,
> I guess) at least fail early and visibly, instead of producing bogus
> results...
Barring other objections, I'll do it that way.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-09-05 18:16:42 | Re: Lazy xid assignment V4 |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-09-05 16:52:40 | Re: Final background writer cleanup for 8.3 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kris Jurka | 2007-09-05 17:05:23 | Re: GSS warnings |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-09-05 16:55:04 | Re: tsearch refactorings |