Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Proposal: Snapshot cloning

From: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,"Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>,"PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Snapshot cloning
Date: 2007-01-26 21:17:37
Message-ID: 1169846257.3772.440.camel@silverbirch.site (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 12:43 -0500, Jan Wieck wrote:

> There is a flaw in that theory. If you have a single LTR, then each 
> subsequent transactions xmin will be exactly that one, no?

You got me. My description was too loose, but you also got the rough
picture. We'll save the detail for another day, but we all know its a
bridge we will have to cross one day, soon. I wasn't meaning to raise
this specific discussion now, just to say that publishing snapshots for
known LRTs is one way by which we can solve the LRT/VACUUMing issue.

-- 
  Simon Riggs             
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-01-26 21:18:44
Subject: Re: pg_restore exclude schema from being droped option
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-01-26 21:15:46
Subject: Re: Recursive query syntax ambiguity

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group