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

Re: Nested transactions and tuple header info

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 (view raw or flat)
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 difĂ­cil como ser libre" (Elsa Triolet)


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2004-06-03 20:49:03
Subject: Re: Check for prepared statement
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2004-06-03 20:18:23
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

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