| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Snapshot synchronization, again... |
| Date: | 2011-02-22 14:50:43 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTin5sVFj+Yov=tR5487DTpMgWD9Ad=PuopiPh_f+@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> Oh. Well that's really silly. At that point you might as well just
>> store the snapshot and an integer identifier in shared memory, right?
>
> Yes, that's the point I was trying to make. I believe the idea of a hash was
> that it takes less memory than storing the whole snapshot (and more
> importantly, a fixed amount of memory per snapshot). But I'm not convinced
> either that dealing with a hash is any less troublesome.
OK, sorry for taking a while to get the point.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-02-22 14:58:16 | Re: OUTER keyword |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-02-22 14:34:34 | Re: Snapshot synchronization, again... |