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

Re: VirtualXactLockTableInsert

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: VirtualXactLockTableInsert
Date: 2008-06-30 06:46:36
Message-ID: 1214808396.3845.434.camel@ebony.site (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 18:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > In cases where we know we will assign a real xid, can we just skip the
> > assignment of the virtual xid completely?
> 
> Even if we could do this I doubt it would be a good idea.  It'd destroy
> the invariant that all transactions have a vxid, which at the very least
> would create naming problems.

Ahh, no, I meant go straight to assigning a real xid, to avoid the
wasted effort in inserting a vxid *and* a real xid.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-06-30 06:51:08
Subject: Re: VirtualXactLockTableInsert
Previous:From: Jamie DeppelerDate: 2008-06-30 05:55:10
Subject: Postgresql 8.3 issue

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