| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Date: | 2010-04-27 22:08:29 |
| Message-ID: | 25104.1272406109@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 17:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think we should just lose that test, as well as the variable.
> Yes, though it looks like it is still necessary in creating a valid
> initial state because otherwise we may have xids in KnownAssigned array
> that are already complete.
Huh? How is a filter as coarse as an oldest-running-XID filter going
to prevent that? And aren't we initializing from trustworthy data in
ProcArrayApplyRecoveryInfo, anyway?
I still say it's useless.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-04-27 22:32:29 | Schema.Table.Col resolution seems broken in Alpha5 |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-04-27 21:45:53 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |