Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Also, we will need a phantom xid for every xid1/xid2 pair. You can't
> > just create one phantom xid per subtransaction because you must be able
> > to control independently commit/rollback rows based on the status of the
> > insert transaction.
> Oh, sure. This could get huge pretty fast.
> We still need to think on the effects this could have on crash recovery
> though -- we'd have to write the phantom Xids to Xlog somehow
> (indicating which ones are committed and which are aborted). And we
> still don't know what effect it would have on CPU cost for every
> visibility check.
As I understand, this overhead would only be needed for subtransactions.
I also don't think there will be a lot of them because it is only for
creation/expire in the same main transaction, and it is only needed for
unique creation/expire combinations, which should be pretty small.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Fabien COELHO||Date: 2004-06-02 07:19:44|
|Subject: Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2004-06-02 03:53:39|
|Subject: Re: Why repalloc() != realloc() ?|