From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(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 02:35:13 |
Message-ID: | 200211290235.gAT2ZD929284@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
Agreed, the clog changes would be the simple solution. However, I am
not sure I can make that level of changes. In fact, the complexity of
having multiple transactions per backend is going to be tough for me
too.
Also, I should point out that balooning pg_clog by 16x is going to mean
we are perhaps 4-8x more likely to need extra pages to mark all
subtransactions.
Isn't there some other way we can link these subtransactions together
rather than mucking with pg_clog, as we only need the linkage while we
mark them all committed?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2002-11-29 02:38:59 | Re: Query performance. 7.2.3 Vs. 7.3 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-29 02:29:31 | Re: nested transactions |