Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem

> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > Hey, I have an idea. Can we do subtransactions as separate transactions
> > > (as Tom mentioned), and put the subtransaction id's in the WAL, so they
> > > an be safely committed/rolledback as a group?
> >
> > It's not quite that easy: all the subtransactions have to commit at
> > *the same time* from the point of view of other xacts, or you have
> > consistency problems. So there'd need to be more xact-commit mechanism
> > than there is now. Snapshots are also interesting; we couldn't use a
> > single xact ID per backend to show the open-transaction state.
>
> Yes, I knew that was going to come up that you have to add a lock to the
> pg_log that is only in affect when someone is commiting a transaction
> with subtransactions. Normal transactions get read/sharedlock, while
> subtransaction needs exclusive/writelock.

I was wrong here. Multiple backends can write to pg_log at the same
time, even subtraction ones. It is just that no backend can read from
pg_log during a subtransaction commit. Acctually, they can if the are
reading a transaction status that is less than the minium active
transaction id, see GetXmaxRecent().

Doesn't seem too bad.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026