Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff
Date: 2003-03-19 18:00:07
Message-ID: 7915.1048096807@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> writes:
> If the sequence is "first update xmin, then set the commit bit", we
> never have an inconsistent state. And if the change is lost, it can
> be redone by the next backend visiting the tuple.

Not if the subtransaction log state has been removed as no longer
needed. I think a WAL entry will be essential. (An alternative
might be to keep subtransaction state as long as we keep pg_clog
state, but that's pretty unpleasant too.)

I think we'd be a lot better off to design this so that we don't need to
alter heap tuple xmin values...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mikheev, Vadim 2003-03-19 18:08:45 Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff
Previous Message Jason Hihn 2003-03-19 17:42:49 Re: PostgreSQL flamage on Slashdot