From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, David Blasby <dblasby(at)refractions(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Nested transactions and tuple header info |
Date: | 2004-06-02 03:59:14 |
Message-ID: | 200406020359.i523xEC08623@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Also, we will need a phantom xid for every xid1/xid2 pair. You can't
> > just create one phantom xid per subtransaction because you must be able
> > to control independently commit/rollback rows based on the status of the
> > insert transaction.
>
> Oh, sure. This could get huge pretty fast.
>
> We still need to think on the effects this could have on crash recovery
> though -- we'd have to write the phantom Xids to Xlog somehow
> (indicating which ones are committed and which are aborted). And we
> still don't know what effect it would have on CPU cost for every
> visibility check.
As I understand, this overhead would only be needed for subtransactions.
I also don't think there will be a lot of them because it is only for
creation/expire in the same main transaction, and it is only needed for
unique creation/expire combinations, which should be pretty small.
--
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 | Fabien COELHO | 2004-06-02 07:19:44 | Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2004-06-02 03:53:39 | Re: Why repalloc() != realloc() ? |