From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: nested transactions |
Date: | 2002-11-29 02:29:31 |
Message-ID: | 18899.1038536971@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I should add that I am not prepared to overhaul the pg_clog file format
> as part of adding subtransactions for 7.4. I can do the tid/sequential scan
> method for abort, or the single-lock method described.
If you think that changing the pg_clog file format would be harder than
either of those other ideas, I think you're very badly mistaken.
pg_clog is touched only by one rather simple module.
I think the other methods will be completely unacceptable from a
performance point of view. They could maybe work if subtransactions
were a seldom-used feature; but the people who want to use 'em are
mostly talking about a subtransaction for *every* command. If you
design your implementation on the assumption that subtransactions are
infrequent, it will be unusably slow.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-11-29 02:35:13 | Re: nested transactions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-29 02:23:00 | Re: Query performance. 7.2.3 Vs. 7.3 |