| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: what to revert |
| Date: | 2016-05-05 03:14:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20160505031435.jwlw3gq57acnjxkx@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-05-05 06:08:39 +0300, Ants Aasma wrote:
> On 5 May 2016 1:28 a.m., "Andres Freund" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > On 2016-05-04 18:22:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > How would the semantics change?
> >
> > Right now the time for computing the snapshot is relevant, if
> > maintenance of xids is moved, it'll likely be tied to the time xids are
> > assigned. That seems perfectly alright, but it'll change behaviour.
>
> FWIW moving the maintenance to a clock tick process will not change user
> visible semantics in any significant way. The change could easily be made
> in the next release.
I'm not convinced of that - right now the timeout is computed as a
offset to the time a snapshot with a certain xmin horizon is
taken. Moving the computation to GetNewTransactionId() or a clock tick
process will make it relative to the time an xid has been generated
(minus a fuzz factor). That'll behave differently in a number of cases, no?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-05 03:23:35 | Re: pg_dump vs. TRANSFORMs |
| Previous Message | Ants Aasma | 2016-05-05 03:08:39 | Re: what to revert |