| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Outstanding patches |
| Date: | 2002-11-07 18:32:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20021107183203.GB4358@dcc.uchile.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 12:27:05AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> CLUSTER ALL patch: I have a problem with this, specifically the fact
> that it changes CLUSTER into a multi-transaction operation.
That was your suggestion...
> That renders CLUSTER non-rollbackable and not callable from functions.
> After all the work we went to to make CLUSTER rollbackable, this seems
> like a giant step backward.
Well, CLUSTER ALL is now non-rollbackable. But why is it useful to
rollback a CLUSTER operation?
I think I can make the one-table-only version rollbackable again (and
keep the ALL version multitransaction). Is that a good tradeoff? Note
that the clusterdb script to appear in 7.3 is horribly broken for
concurrent cases, and is much worse than the outstanding CLUSTER ALL
patch.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Saca el libro que tu religion considere como el indicado para encontrar la
oracion que traiga paz a tu alma. Luego rebootea el computador
y ve si funciona" (Carlos Duclos)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | snpe | 2002-11-07 18:40:16 | Re: protocol change in 7.4 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-07 18:21:31 | Re: PL/Perl and Perl 5.8 |