From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Karl Pickett <karl(dot)pickett(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Can Postgres Not Do This Safely ?!? |
Date: | 2010-10-29 13:58:47 |
Message-ID: | 201010290658.47988.adrian.klaver@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thursday 28 October 2010 7:04:48 pm Karl Pickett wrote:
> Hello Postgres Hackers,
>
> We have a simple 'event log' table that is insert only (by multiple
> concurrent clients). It has an integer primary key. We want to do
> incremental queries of this table every 5 minutes or so, i.e. "select
> * from events where id > LAST_ID_I_GOT" to insert into a separate
> reporting database. The problem is, this simple approach has a race
> that will forever skip uncommitted events. I.e., if 5000 was
> committed sooner than 4999, and we get 5000, we will never go back and
> get 4999 when it finally commits. How can we solve this? Basically
> it's a phantom row problem but it spans transactions.
>
> I looked at checking the internal 'xmin' column but the docs say that
> is 32 bit, and something like 'txid_current_snapshot' returns a 64 bit
> value. I don't get it.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/functions-info.html#FUNCTIONS-TXID-SNAPSHOT-PARTS
"The internal transaction ID type (xid) is 32 bits wide and wraps around every 4
billion transactions. However, these functions export a 64-bit format that is
extended with an "epoch" counter so it will not wrap around during the life of
an installation. The data type used by these functions, txid_snapshot, stores
information about transaction ID visibility at a particular moment in time. Its
components are described in Table 9-53. "
So:
Current snapshot:
test=> SELECT txid_current_snapshot();
txid_current_snapshot
-----------------------
5098:5098:
xmin of snapshot:
test=> SELECT txid_snapshot_xmin(txid_current_snapshot());
txid_snapshot_xmin
--------------------
5098
(1 row)
> All I want to is make sure I skip over any
> rows that are newer than the oldest currently running transaction.
> Has nobody else run into this before?
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> --
> Karl Pickett
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vick Khera | 2010-10-29 14:21:14 | Re: exceptionally large UPDATE |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2010-10-29 13:52:49 | Re: 9.0.1-1 windows install VC++ 2008 redistributalbe warning |