| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Serializable Snapshot Isolation |
| Date: | 2010-09-17 11:59:47 |
| Message-ID: | 4C935833.2080303@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17/09/10 14:56, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Why not use SubTransGetTopmostTransaction() ?
>
> This needs to work when the xid of a transaction is found in the MVCC
> data of a tuple for any overlapping serializable transaction -- even
> if that transaction has completed and its connection has been
> closed. It didn't look to me like SubTransGetTopmostTransaction()
> would work after the transaction was gone.
You're right, it doesn't retain that old transactions. But it could
easily be modified to do so.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-09-17 12:08:09 | Re: Serializable Snapshot Isolation |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-09-17 11:56:59 | Re: Configuring synchronous replication |