| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: advancing snapshot's xmin |
| Date: | 2008-03-26 16:05:33 |
| Message-ID: | 200803261705.36443.dfontaine@hi-media.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le mercredi 26 mars 2008, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> writes:
> > Le mercredi 26 mars 2008, Tom Lane a écrit :
> >> whenever the number of active snapshots goes to zero
> > Does this ever happen?
> Certainly: between any two commands of a non-serializable transaction.
Oh, it's a transaction scope snapshot when I though about cluster global
snapshots. Thanks a lot for explaining, and sorry for disturbing! :)
--
dim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-03-26 16:17:19 | Re: Script binaries renaming |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-26 15:58:52 | Re: advancing snapshot's xmin |