| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>, Mitchell Skinner <mitch(at)arctur(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |
| Date: | 2006-05-11 18:03:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20060511180319.GK30113@svana.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 12:18:06PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > Yes, because there can be more than one active snapshot within a single
> > transaction (think about volatile functions in particular).
>
> Any documentation on how snapshot's work? They're a big mystery to me.
> :(
A snapshot is a particular view on a database. In particular, you have
to be able to view a version of the database that doesn't have you own
changes, otherwise an UPDATE would keep updating the same tuple. Also,
for example, a cursor might see an older version of the database than
queries being run. I don't know of any particular information about it
though. Google wasn't that helpful.
> > No; you forgot about subtransactions.
>
> Oh, I thought those were done with cmin and cmax... if that's not what
> cmin/cmax are for, then what is?
cmin/cmax are command counters. So in the sequence:
BEGIN;
SELECT 1;
SELECT 2;
The second query runs as the same transaction ID but a higher command
ID so it can see the result of the previous query. Subtransactions are
(AIUI anyway) done by having transactions depend on other transactions.
When you start a savepoint you start a new transaction ID whose status
is tied to its top-level transaction ID but can also be individually
rolledback.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2006-05-11 18:36:25 | hashagg, statistisics and excessive memory allocation |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2006-05-11 18:02:57 | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-05-11 18:43:46 | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2006-05-11 18:02:57 | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |