From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Ian Lance Taylor <ian(at)airs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CURRENT OF cursor without OIDs |
Date: | 2001-08-09 02:36:13 |
Message-ID: | 3B71F71D.A39B929B@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > GetXmaxRecent() ignores the backend tx_old because it had been
> > committed when VACUUM started and may return the xid > the
> > very old xid of tx_old.
>
> Absolutely not; things would never work if that were true.
> GetXmaxRecent() returns the oldest TID that was running *when any
> current transaction started*, not just VACUUM's transaction. Thus,
> no transaction that could be considered live by the cursor-holding
> transaction will be considered dead by VACUUM.
>
Oops I've misunderstood GetXmaxRecent() until now.
Now I'm checking the current source.
Hmm is there any place setting proc->xmin other than
the following ?
[in storage/ipc/sinval.c]
if (serializable)
MyProc->xmin = snapshot->xmin;
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-08-09 02:36:56 | Re: To be 7.1.3 or not to be 7.1.3? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-08-09 02:20:15 | Re: To be 7.1.3 or not to be 7.1.3? |