| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Static snapshot data |
| Date: | 2003-06-02 16:02:26 |
| Message-ID: | 8959.1054569746@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> After lots of discussion, it seems this is to be applied.
I'm still concerned that this will create problems for nested
transactions, while saving only an insignificant number of cycles per
transaction. I would suggest putting the idea on hold until the
dust has settled from nested transactions. If it's still workable
after that feature is complete, we can shave cycles then.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-06-02 16:07:28 | Re: [HACKERS] GUC and postgresql.conf docs |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-06-02 15:28:53 | Re: Static snapshot data |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-06-02 16:07:28 | Re: [HACKERS] GUC and postgresql.conf docs |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-06-02 16:01:46 | Re: SQL99 CREATE TABLE ... (LIKE parent_table) |