| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Status of the table access method work |
| Date: | 2019-06-11 15:47:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20190611154711.GA19415@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Apr-10, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Alternative idea is to have MVCC-aware indexes. This approach looks
> more attractive for me. In this approach you basically need xmin,
> xmax fields in index tuples.
"We liked freezing xmin so much that we had to introduce freezing for
xmax" -- rhaas dixit. And now we want to introduce freezing for
indexes?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-06-11 15:59:36 | Re: Status of the table access method work |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-06-11 15:47:07 | aborting a non-speculative insertion |