Re: [HACKERS] XIDTAG ???

>
> > On Mon, 3 May 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > Probably no reason for the transaction id. I don't remember that being
> > > used at all.
> >
> > Do you mean that there is no reason for the xid to exist, as it is not
> > used? If so, then may I humbly request that it be left in for another
> > six months in the hopes of using a transaction processing monitor to
> > distribute postgres across multiple machines safely? I'll need the xid
> > if and when I start that project, which will be after I finish the
> > TPM. 8^)
>
> No, I don't recommend removing it, but just not storing it in the lock
> system. There is no need for it there.

I don't see any urgent reason for removing it. For the moment I would leave
the code as is. A distributed postgres sounds interesting.

--
Massimo Dal Zotto

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Massimo Dal Zotto email: dz(at)cs(dot)unitn(dot)it |
| Via Marconi, 141 phone: ++39-0461534251 |
| 38057 Pergine Valsugana (TN) www: http://www.cs.unitn.it/~dz/ |
| Italy pgp: finger dz(at)tango(dot)cs(dot)unitn(dot)it |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+