From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-documentation <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: MVCC snapshot timing |
Date: | 2013-11-12 02:19:54 |
Message-ID: | 20131112021954.GD15562@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:59:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 03:39:45PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm not really seeing the point of s/transaction/session/ here.
>
> > Well, the problem with the original wording is that we don't take a new
> > snapshot for every transaction in the default read-committed mode.
>
> We take at least one snapshot per transaction, in any mode. Referring
> to sessions makes it even further away from being a useful concept.
>
> > Would you prefer I refer to statements, e.g.:
>
> 'Statement' might work.
OK, updated patch attached. Is "statement" too vague here? SQL
statement? query?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
mvcc.diff | text/x-diff | 1.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-12 02:27:15 | Re: MVCC snapshot timing |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-12 01:59:35 | Re: MVCC snapshot timing |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-12 02:27:15 | Re: MVCC snapshot timing |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-12 02:13:48 | Re: Clang 3.3 Analyzer Results |