On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 15:11 +0000, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 18:46 +0000, Gregory Stark wrote:
> >> To do something like that the user would have to create a prepared transaction
> >> to save the snapshot. I think that makes sense though since effectively it's
> >> just requiring that the user explicitly do what would otherwise be a hidden
> >> implicit requirement -- that the user do something to hold globalxmin back to
> >> avoid having the snapshots expire.
> > This is a good idea which I will want to develop in the future, not yet
> > though.
> I didn't mean this as an additional feature. I'm talking about how users would
> use the two very different proposed interfaces.
> In your version the user can save the actual snapshot somewhere and then use
> it later. He'll presumably get an error if the snapshot is no longer usable
> and there's no way for him to protect it and guarantee it's still usable.
> In Tom's version the user can only copy the snapshot from some other running
> session. It's necessarily still valid because the session is using it. But if
> the user wants to save it for later he'll have to create a session (or
> prepared transaction) to hold the snapshot.
OK, misunderstanding. "My version" is being done now, so we can use it
now; it will be published as BSD licenced open source software, but as
yet seems unlikely to ever be part of a main distribution of Postgres.
It will probably be published on pgfoundry, though possibly elsewhere
also. I don't take credit for the general idea, but I am responsible for
the idea to do this now as an external function.
I prefer this done in the backend in the long term, much safer, which we
are agreed upon. I'll come back to that so we get it into 8.4.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2008-01-20 19:41:41|
|Subject: Re: Friendly help for psql|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-01-20 19:08:42|
|Subject: Re: Friendly help for psql |