From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Exposing the Xact commit order to the user |
Date: | 2010-05-24 17:11:16 |
Message-ID: | 4BFAB334.5090705@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 24/05/10 19:51, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> The only thing I'm confused about is what benefit anyone expects to
> get from looking at data between commits in some way other than our
> current snapshot mechanism. Can someone explain a use case where
> what Jan is proposing is better than snapshot isolation? It doesn't
> provide any additional integrity guarantees that I can see.
Right, it doesn't. What it provides is a way to reconstruct a snapshot
at any point in time, after the fact. For example, after transactions A,
C, D and B have committed in that order, it allows you to reconstruct a
snapshot just like you would've gotten immediately after the commit of
A, C, D and B respectively. That's useful replication tools like Slony
that needs to commit the changes of those transactions in the slave in
the same order as they were committed in the master.
I don't know enough of Slony et al. to understand why that'd be better
than the current heartbeat mechanism they use, taking a snapshot every
few seconds, batching commits.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-24 17:12:21 | Re: [PATCH] Move 'long long' check to c.h |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-05-24 16:51:02 | Re: Exposing the Xact commit order to the user |