| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: XID wraparound and busy databases |
| Date: | 2007-08-15 22:06:10 |
| Message-ID: | 7968.1187215570@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> I'm a little confused, wouldnt the transaction that waits 30 minutes before
> modifying data need to get an XID that jives with the system when it's
> transaction started, not when it began manipulating data?
Why?
> Would it really be safe to take a new snapshot at that time,
You wouldn't take a new snapshot. The thought that occurs to me is that
there's no reason that a transaction has to have an XID for itself
before it takes a snapshot. We always special-case our own XID anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Mayer | 2007-08-15 22:25:07 | Re: tsearch2 in PostgreSQL 8.3? |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-08-15 20:54:17 | Re: Index Tuple Compression Approach? |