| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>,<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Serializable Snapshot Isolation |
| Date: | 2010-09-17 12:08:09 |
| Message-ID: | 4C9313D9020000250003592D@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 17/09/10 14:56, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> Why not use SubTransGetTopmostTransaction() ?
>>
>> This needs to work when the xid of a transaction is found in the
>> MVCC data of a tuple for any overlapping serializable transaction
>> -- even if that transaction has completed and its connection has
>> been closed. It didn't look to me like
>> SubTransGetTopmostTransaction() would work after the transaction
>> was gone.
>
> You're right, it doesn't retain that old transactions. But it could
> easily be modified to do so.
I shall look into it.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-09-17 12:20:15 | Re: Configuring synchronous replication |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-09-17 11:59:47 | Re: Serializable Snapshot Isolation |