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

Re: Improve XLOG_NO_TRAN related comments

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Improve XLOG_NO_TRAN related comments
Date: 2005-12-26 15:09:04
Message-ID: 9457.1135609744@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> writes:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Removing these comments entirely, without changing the code they explain,
>> doesn't strike me as an improvement.

> I just checked if we can remove XLOG_NO_TRAN happily, and the conclusion
> is that it could bring some benefits (though not much) to our system. The
> key is the CheckpointStartLock lock.

Hm.  Perhaps we could keep the current behavior and re-document
XLOG_NO_TRAN as meaning that the xlog record does not involve the
insertion of our XID into permanent storage.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-26 15:11:07
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits
Previous:From: Akio IwaasaDate: 2005-12-26 13:34:52
Subject: BUG #2129: dblink problem

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