| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)asterdata(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: COPY enhancements |
| Date: | 2009-10-19 15:34:30 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070910190834u6169c3f9jed2ad2fecf24e574@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Gokulakannan Somasundaram escribió:
>
>> Actually this problem is present even in today's transaction id scenario and
>> the only way we avoid is by using freezing. Can we use a similar approach?
>> This freezing should mean that we are freezing the sub-transaction in order
>> to avoid the sub-transaction wrap around failure.
>
> This would mean we would have to go over the data inserted by the
> subtransaction and mark it as "subxact frozen". Some sort of sub-vacuum
> if you will (because it obviously needs to work inside a transaction).
> Doesn't sound real workable to me.
Especially because the XID consumed by the sub-transaction would still
be consumed, advancing the global XID counter. Reclaiming the XIDs
after the fact doesn't fix anything as far as I can see.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-10-19 15:36:41 | Re: Controlling changes in plpgsql variable resolution |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2009-10-19 15:27:02 | Re: Application name patch - v2 |