| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)asterdata(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: COPY enhancements |
| Date: | 2009-10-19 15:21:48 |
| Message-ID: | 20091019152148.GA3352@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gokulakannan Somasundaram escribió:
> Actually this problem is present even in today's transaction id scenario and
> the only way we avoid is by using freezing. Can we use a similar approach?
> This freezing should mean that we are freezing the sub-transaction in order
> to avoid the sub-transaction wrap around failure.
This would mean we would have to go over the data inserted by the
subtransaction and mark it as "subxact frozen". Some sort of sub-vacuum
if you will (because it obviously needs to work inside a transaction).
Doesn't sound real workable to me.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2009-10-19 15:27:02 | Re: Application name patch - v2 |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-10-19 15:09:46 | Re: Application name patch - v2 |