From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: synchronized snapshots |
Date: | 2011-10-23 09:00:30 |
Message-ID: | CAA-aLv4g80uHZcORvt80bUz8rkj+JDiGB9sYh0PESZgBa-sr7w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 23 October 2011 03:15, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> writes:
>> Can I ask why it doesn't return the same snapshot ID each time?
>> Surely it can't change since you can only export the snapshot of a
>> serializable or repeatable read transaction?
>
> No, that's incorrect. You can export from a READ COMMITTED transaction;
> indeed, you'd more or less have to, if you want the control transaction
> to be able to see what the slaves do.
My bad. I didn't read the documentation carefully enough. I can make
sense of it now.
Thanks
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Wojciech Muła | 2011-10-23 14:31:48 | [PL/pgSQL] %TYPE and array declaration - second patch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-23 03:44:59 | Re: [PATCH] Deferrable unique constraints vs join removal -- bug? |