From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, David Blasby <dblasby(at)refractions(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Nested transactions and tuple header info |
Date: | 2004-06-03 20:21:06 |
Message-ID: | 20040603202106.GA31283@dcc.uchile.cl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:57:05AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > No, I said own xid --- so the "phantom xid" part is still there. But
> > your idea definitely does *not* work unless you use a single CID
> > sequence for the whole main xact; and I'm still wondering if there's
> > not a simpler implementation possible given that assumption.
>
> I don't understand why a single counter is needed for phantom xids. We
> keep the cmin/cmax on the tuple already, and our own backend can look up
> the xmin/xmax that goes with the phantom.
Not sure either way (maybe you are right), but I use the global counter
anyway because some tests would become a very ugly mess if I didn't. I
think the phantom idea is also simpler with the global counter.
And I see no reason to use local counter. We certainly are not
hitting the limit with the global counter, as Tom pointed out recently
in a thread about the aborted CID bitmaps.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Crear es tan difícil como ser libre" (Elsa Triolet)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2004-06-03 20:49:03 | Re: Check for prepared statement |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2004-06-03 20:18:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? |