| From: | Haroldo Stenger <hstenger(at)adinet(dot)com(dot)uy> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Savepoints |
| Date: | 2002-01-23 19:15:12 |
| Message-ID: | 3C4F0BC0.5CFBB919@adinet.com.uy |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Basically, under my plan, WAL would be unchanged. WAL's function is
> crash recovery, and it would retain that. There would also be no
> on-disk changes. I would use the command counter in certain cases to
> identify savepoints.
This is a pointer to the previous August thread, where your original proposal
was posted, and some WAL/not WAL discussion took place. Just not to repeat the
already mentioned points. Oh, it's google archive just for fun, and to not
overload hub.org ;-)
Regards,
Haroldo.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-23 19:15:21 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-23 19:10:27 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |