Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:57:05AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > No, I said own xid --- so the "phantom xid" part is still there. But
> > > your idea definitely does *not* work unless you use a single CID
> > > sequence for the whole main xact; and I'm still wondering if there's
> > > not a simpler implementation possible given that assumption.
> > I don't understand why a single counter is needed for phantom xids. We
> > keep the cmin/cmax on the tuple already, and our own backend can look up
> > the xmin/xmax that goes with the phantom.
> Not sure either way (maybe you are right), but I use the global counter
> anyway because some tests would become a very ugly mess if I didn't. I
> think the phantom idea is also simpler with the global counter.
> And I see no reason to use local counter. We certainly are not
> hitting the limit with the global counter, as Tom pointed out recently
> in a thread about the aborted CID bitmaps.
Sure, use the global counter if it helps. My only point was that I
didn't see how a global counter could reduce the number of times we have
to look up the phantom xid to find the xmin/xmax.
However, if you have a map showing which command counter goes with which
subtransaction, then you _certainly_ could reduce the number of phantom
lookups. (The command counter cmin/cmax tells you the xmin/xmax). In
fact, in that case, the phatom xid's are only used on commit so you can
make certain tuples visible/invisible to other transactions.
To find the phantom xid idea, I had to wander around the house for a few
hours thinking of what was in that tuple header and how this could be
accomplished. I am sorry I led Alvaro initially into thinking he didn't
need to keep the cmin.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Enrico Weigelt||Date: 2004-06-03 21:24:27|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2004-06-03 20:49:03|
|Subject: Re: Check for prepared statement|