Re: Low hanging fruit in lazy-XID-assignment patch?

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Low hanging fruit in lazy-XID-assignment patch?
Date: 2007-09-08 20:11:37
Message-ID: 200709081311.37723.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg,

> Aren't there some things that depend on the idea that even READ COMMITTED
> transactions still have a serializable snapshot lying around for them to
> use?

No, that would be REPEATABLE READ. That's one of the areas where we need to
test HOT; does RR and SERIALIZABLE still work correctly with HOT?

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2007-09-08 20:15:34 Re: Just-in-time Background Writer Patch+Test Results
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2007-09-08 19:35:50 Re: [FEATURE REQUEST] Streaming Onlinebackup (MaybeOFFTOPIC)