| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Multixid hindsight design |
| Date: | 2015-06-05 09:45:09 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+j+mg5qSFEQ=WsBNRaqV7KXWfb1rO3iV3BE1w1MJtyphCw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1 June 2015 at 20:53, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
> wrote:
> > The beauty of this would be that the TED entries can be zapped at
> restart,
> > just like pg_subtrans, and pg_multixact before 9.3. It doesn't need to be
> > WAL-logged, and we are free to change its on-disk layout even in a minor
> > release.
>
> What about prepared transactions? They can lock rows FOR SHARE that
> survive server restarts.
>
Interesting comment. I'm not aware that we do.
If we do support row locking that survives server restart, how did it work
before 9.3?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shigeru HANADA | 2015-06-05 09:51:53 | Re: [idea] more aggressive join pushdown on postgres_fdw |
| Previous Message | Shulgin, Oleksandr | 2015-06-05 08:59:33 | Re: Handle PGRES_COPY_BOTH in psql for logical replication? |