|From:||Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|To:||Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Arseny Sher <a(dot)sher(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Global snapshots|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> On 29 Nov 2018, at 18:21, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 1:35 PM Arseny Sher <a(dot)sher(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>> I have looked through the patches and found them pretty accurate. I'd
>> fixed a lot of small issues here and there; updated patchset is
> Thank you for working on this patch. Unfortunately, the patch has some
> conflicts, could you please rebase it?
Rebased onto current master (dcfdf56e89a). Also I corrected few formatting issues
and worked around new pgbench return codes policy in tests.
> Also I wonder if you or Stas can shed
> some light about this:
>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 2:02 PM Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>>> On 15 May 2018, at 15:53, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I guess it seems to me that you
>>> have some further research to do along the lines you've described:
>>> 1. Can we hold back xmin only when necessary and to the extent
>>> necessary instead of all the time?
>>> 2. Can we use something like an STO analog, maybe as an optional
>>> feature, rather than actually holding back xmin?
>> Yes, to both questions. I'll implement that and share results.
> Is there any resulting patch where the ideas how to implement this are outlined?
Not yet. I’m going to continue work on this in January. And probably try to
force some of nearby committers to make a line by line review.
|Next Message||Alvaro Herrera||2018-11-30 13:23:50||Re: New GUC to sample log queries|
|Previous Message||Surafel Temesgen||2018-11-30 13:00:12||Re: COPY FROM WHEN condition|