| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: cheaper snapshots |
| Date: | 2011-07-28 22:03:15 |
| Message-ID: | 4E319653020000250003F896@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> Wouldn't the same issue exist if one transaction is waiting for
> sync rep (synchronous_commit=on), and another is waiting for just
> a WAL flush (synchronous_commit=local)? I don't think that a
> synchronous_commit=off is required.
I think you're right -- basically, to make visibility atomic with
commit and allow a fast snapshot build based on that order, any new
commit request would need to block behind any pending request,
regardless of that setting. At least, no way around that is
apparent to me.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-07-28 22:05:51 | Re: cheaper snapshots |
| Previous Message | karavelov | 2011-07-28 22:00:22 | Re: cheaper snapshots |