|From:||Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru, Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Global snapshots|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 1:35 PM Arseny Sher <a(dot)sher(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> I have looked through the patches and found them pretty accurate. I'd
> fixed a lot of small issues here and there; updated patchset is
Thank you for working on this patch. Unfortunately, the patch has some
conflicts, could you please rebase it? Also I wonder if you or Stas can shed
some light about this:
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 2:02 PM Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> > On 15 May 2018, at 15:53, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I guess it seems to me that you
> > have some further research to do along the lines you've described:
> > 1. Can we hold back xmin only when necessary and to the extent
> > necessary instead of all the time?
> > 2. Can we use something like an STO analog, maybe as an optional
> > feature, rather than actually holding back xmin?
> Yes, to both questions. I'll implement that and share results.
Is there any resulting patch where the ideas how to implement this are outlined?
|Next Message||Dmitry Dolgov||2018-11-29 15:24:43||Re: [PATCH] kNN for btree|
|Previous Message||Bossart, Nathan||2018-11-29 15:00:42||Re: Use durable_unlink for .ready and .done files for WAL segment removal|