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

Re: Vacuum threshold and non-serializable read-only transaction

From: ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Vacuum threshold and non-serializable read-only transaction
Date: 2008-01-28 06:48:52
Message-ID: 20080128153720.7D68.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Surely this'd require having those transactions display exactly what
> their current oldest-xmin is.  We've talked about that before, and it
> seems a good idea, but it requires a bit more infrastructure than is
> there now --- we'd need some snapshot-management code that could keep
> track of all live snapshots within each backend.

I see. I'll need to avoid long transactions during heavily updates.
The additonal management seems to be good, but not so easy
because we should not lead lock contentions at the same time.

Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2008-01-28 06:54:24
Subject: Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
Previous:From: Russell SmithDate: 2008-01-28 06:27:46
Subject: Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

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