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

Re: Transaction Snapshot Cloning

From: "Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Transaction Snapshot Cloning
Date: 2008-01-11 20:31:08
Message-ID: 9362e74e0801111231i491b7126od4601c142d14c067@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
>
> The user isn't going to have any legal way to transfer the data between
> backends anyway, since no transaction can see results of an uncommitted
> other transaction.  There *has* to be some backdoor channel involved
> there, and you might as well make it carry the data without the user
> touching it.
>
> The whole thing seems a bit backwards anyway.  What you'd really want
> for ease of use is some kind of "fork this session" operation, that
> is push the info to a new process not pull it.


Is it a good idea to fork this new process under the same transaction id?.
In that way the backends will be seeing the same versions of data among
themselves.... Are you mentioning the same here?

Thanks,
Gokul.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-01-11 20:39:04
Subject: Re: Transaction Snapshot Cloning
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-11 20:05:34
Subject: Re: Transaction Snapshot Cloning

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