| From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: synchronized snapshots |
| Date: | 2011-10-23 00:19:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAA-aLv65=ELSBQevxu-PtQVLuf0ky5f96aNbbU7KXgrEUoOykg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 23 October 2011 00:25, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> writes:
>> [ synchronized snapshots patch ]
>
> Applied with, um, rather extensive editorialization.
>
> I'm not convinced that the SSI case is bulletproof yet, but it'll be
> easier to test with the code committed.
Can I ask why it doesn't return the same snapshot ID each time?
Surely it can't change since you can only export the snapshot of a
serializable or repeatable read transaction? A "SELECT
count(pg_export_snapshot()) FROM generate_series(1,10000000);" would
quickly bork the pg_snapshots directory which any user can run.
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | nrdb | 2011-10-23 01:19:49 | Re: database file encryption. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-22 22:34:07 | Re: SSI implementation question |