Re: synchronized snapshots

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?