On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 18:05 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> But it is also possible, that you can get logically consistent snapshots
> by protecting only some ops. for example, if you protect only insert and
> get snapshot, then the worst that can happen is that you get a snapshot
> that is a few commits older than what youd get with full locking and it
> may well be ok for all real uses.
Thinking more of it, we should lock commit/remove_txid and get_snapshot
having a few more running backends does not make a difference, but
seeing commits in wrong order may.
this will cause contention between commit and get_snapshot, but
hopefully less than current ProcArray manipulation, as there is just one
simple C array to lock and copy.
PostgreSQL Infinite Scalability and Performance Consultant
PG Admin Book: http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2011-07-28 16:53:01|
|Subject: Re: New partitioning WAS: Check constraints on partition
|Previous:||From: Hannu Krosing||Date: 2011-07-28 16:08:18|
|Subject: Re: cheaper snapshots|