| From: | Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: what to revert |
| Date: | 2016-05-05 03:08:39 |
| Message-ID: | CA+CSw_tWj=nn6KbVtSR0xozc40R5WMgu9Pm94E8fRoCET3GsMw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5 May 2016 1:28 a.m., "Andres Freund" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2016-05-04 18:22:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > How would the semantics change?
>
> Right now the time for computing the snapshot is relevant, if
> maintenance of xids is moved, it'll likely be tied to the time xids are
> assigned. That seems perfectly alright, but it'll change behaviour.
FWIW moving the maintenance to a clock tick process will not change user
visible semantics in any significant way. The change could easily be made
in the next release.
Regards,
Ants Aasma
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-05-05 03:14:35 | Re: what to revert |
| Previous Message | Josh berkus | 2016-05-05 02:16:15 | Re: Postgres 9.6 scariest patch tournament |