From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: age(xid) on hot standby |
Date: | 2012-01-16 15:27:03 |
Message-ID: | 24232.1326727623@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of dom ene 15 10:00:03 -0300 2012:
>> On ons, 2011-12-28 at 14:35 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The trouble with using ReadNewTransactionId is that it makes the results
>>> volatile, not stable as the function is declared to be.
>> Could we alleviate that problem with some caching within the function?
> Maybe if we have it be invalidated at transaction end, that could work.
> So each new transaction would get a fresh value.
Yeah, I think that would work.
> If you had a long
> running transaction the cached value would get behind, but maybe this is
> not a problem or we could design some protection against it.
Nobody has complained about the fact that age()'s reference point
remains fixed throughout a transaction on the master, so I don't see why
we'd not be happy with that behavior on a standby.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-01-16 15:43:41 | Re: reprise: pretty print viewdefs |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-01-16 15:23:52 | inconsistent comparison of CHECK constraints |