| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Prepared transactions vs novice DBAs, again |
| Date: | 2009-04-23 00:58:07 |
| Message-ID: | 11192.1240448287@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think we've already milked what we can from that, since a prepared
>> xact is treated exactly like an open one with no snapshot. The point
>> is that whatever rows it's written are still in-doubt and cannot be
>> frozen, so the wraparound horizon cannot advance past its XID.
> But surely that's not "the same" as a backend which is
> idle-in-transaction? In that case I think you still need a snapshot?
No; at least not unless it's a serializable transaction. That's the
point of the snapshot management work that Alvaro did for 8.4.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-04-23 01:21:12 | Re: Prepared transactions vs novice DBAs, again |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-04-23 00:49:37 | Re: Prepared transactions vs novice DBAs, again |