| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
| Date: | 2001-05-19 03:43:42 |
| Message-ID: | 28481.990243822@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Hey, I have an idea. Can we do subtransactions as separate transactions
> (as Tom mentioned), and put the subtransaction id's in the WAL, so they
> an be safely committed/rolledback as a group?
It's not quite that easy: all the subtransactions have to commit at
*the same time* from the point of view of other xacts, or you have
consistency problems. So there'd need to be more xact-commit mechanism
than there is now. Snapshots are also interesting; we couldn't use a
single xact ID per backend to show the open-transaction state.
WAL doesn't really enter into it AFAICS...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-05-19 03:57:01 | Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
| Previous Message | Alex Pilosov | 2001-05-19 03:42:47 | force of last XID |