From: | Florian Pflug <fgp(dot)phlo(dot)org(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review |
Date: | 2007-10-10 18:55:28 |
Message-ID: | 470D2020.5060402@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> The proposed behavior of txid_current_snapshot would defeat any possibility
> of such an optimization, because we'd have to keep around the xact's oldest
> snapshot on the off chance that txid_current_snapshot would be called later
> in the xact.
>
> I think txid_current_snapshot should read ActiveSnapshot. If the user wants
> to get a beginning-of-xact rather than beginning-of-statement snapshot from
> it, he should be required to call it in a serializable transaction.
Hm... does txid require that the snapshot it uses a valid in the sense that
its xmin follows OldestXmin? If not, we could keep the snapshot around for txid,
but still update our published xmin - which seems to be the main reason we care
about getting rid of old snapshots at all.
greetings, Florian Pflug
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-10-10 18:57:56 | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-10 18:43:43 | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-10-10 18:57:56 | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-10 18:43:43 | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review |