| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: getting rid of SnapshotNow |
| Date: | 2013-07-19 16:29:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20130719162932.GA4130@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-odbc |
Robert Haas escribió:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Why not tell people to use SnapshotDirty if they need a
> > not-guaranteed-consistent result? At least then it's pretty obvious
> > that you're getting some randomness in with your news.
> On further reflection, I think perhaps pgrowlocks should just register
> a fresh MVCC snapshot and use that. Using SnapshotDirty would return
> TIDs of unseen tuples, which does not seem to be what is wanted there.
I think seeing otherwise invisible rows is useful in pgrowlocks. It
helps observe the effects on tuples written by concurrent transactions
during experimentation. But then, maybe this functionality belongs in
pageinspect instead.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-07-19 16:33:02 | Re: LOCK TABLE Permissions |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-07-19 16:23:56 | Re: Using ini file to setup replication |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-07-19 16:46:06 | Re: getting rid of SnapshotNow |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-07-19 16:11:23 | Re: [ODBC] getting rid of SnapshotNow |