Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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