Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: advancing snapshot's xmin

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: advancing snapshot's xmin
Date: 2008-03-26 08:33:27
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Le mercredi 26 mars 2008, Tom Lane a écrit :
> whenever the number of active snapshots goes to zero

Does this ever happen?
I mean, if the way to avoid locking contention is to rely on a production 
system which let the service "breathe" from time to time, maybe there's 
something wrong in the reasoning.

Of course I'm much more ready to accept I don't understand the first bit of it 
all than to consider you're off-tracks here, but...

If you ask a stupid question, you may feel stupid. If you don’t ask a stupid 
question, you remain stupid.
    -- Tony Rothman, Ph.D.U. Chicago, Physics

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2008-03-26 08:51:31
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Replication with read-only access to standby DB
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-03-26 07:55:44
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Replication with read-only access tostandby DB

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group