| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-26 21:18:44 | Re: pg_restore exclude schema from being droped option |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-26 21:15:46 | Re: Recursive query syntax ambiguity |