Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've been trying to think of ways to solve these problems by having a
>> main xact and all its subxacts share a common CID sequence (ie, a
>> subxact would have its own xid but would not start CID over at one).
>> If you assume that, then Bruce's idea may indeed work, since you would
>> never replace xmin in a way that would shift the interpretation of cmin
>> into a different CID sequence. But I suspect there is a simpler way to
>> solve it given that constraint.
> I thought about using a global command counter. The problem there is
> that there is no way to control the visibility of tuples by other
> transactions on commit except going back end fixing up tuples, which is
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.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Christopher Kings-Lynne||Date: 2004-06-02 14:54:36|
|Subject: Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-06-02 14:48:29|
|Subject: Re: Converting postgresql.conf parameters to kilobytes |