| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: lazy detoasting |
| Date: | 2018-04-11 19:04:13 |
| Message-ID: | 21776.1523473453@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> writes:
> But let me return to the earlier idea for a moment: are you saying
> that it might *not* be sufficient to find an applicable snapshot at
> the time of constructing the object, and register that snapshot
> on TopTransactionResourceOwner?
The problem is to know which snapshot is applicable; if the transaction
has more than one, you don't know which was used to read the row of
interest. I suppose you could be conservative and use the oldest one,
if snapmgr lets you find that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2018-04-11 19:13:52 | Re: lazy detoasting |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-11 18:57:17 | Re: Bugs in TOAST handling, OID assignment and redo recovery |