From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Prepared transactions vs novice DBAs, again |
Date: | 2009-04-23 00:49:37 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070904221749mbe90992r9f747f192046c683@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> It still does. A prepared xact is just like a idle-in-transaction backend as
>>> far as vacuum is concerned.
>
>> Is that really necessary? It's true that you can't vacuum away any
>> rows whose xmin is that of the prepared xact, but it seems like you
>> wouldn't need to keep rows just because they were *visible* to the
>> prepared xact. Once prepared, it's no longer capable of reading them.
>
> I think we've already milked what we can from that, since a prepared
> xact is treated exactly like an open one with no snapshot. The point
> is that whatever rows it's written are still in-doubt and cannot be
> frozen, so the wraparound horizon cannot advance past its XID.
But surely that's not "the same" as a backend which is
idle-in-transaction? In that case I think you still need a snapshot?
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-23 00:58:07 | Re: Prepared transactions vs novice DBAs, again |
Previous Message | Grzegorz Jaskiewicz | 2009-04-22 23:13:17 | Re: GCC 4.4 compiler warnings |