| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-01-11 20:39:04 | Re: Transaction Snapshot Cloning |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-11 20:05:34 | Re: Transaction Snapshot Cloning |