Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review
От | Hannu Krosing |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1192040027.8959.17.camel@hannu-laptop обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2007-10-10 kell 12:18, kirjutas Tom Lane: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: > > (Assuming it's technically sound - I still haven't checked the actual > > code, but I'm assuming it's Ok since Jan approved it) > > I hadn't looked at it either, but here are a few things that need > review: > > * Why no binary I/O support for the new datatype? We tend to expect > that for all core types. should be easy to add, likely a copy-past from any other varlena type. > * Why is txid_current_snapshot() excluding subtransaction XIDs? That > might be all right for the current uses in Slony/Skytools, but it seems > darn close to a bug for any other use. Just thinking aloud here : I think that the reason has something to do with it being for stored snapshots used by different transactions for determining info about other committed transactions , and the stored snapshots and transaction ids become visible from SQL level only after both are committed. There may be cases where you want to use it from other places, say C code for user-defined function dealing with visibility of other transactions, but before adding in subtransactions and thus possibly bloating the storage, we should first identify such case. Most likely it is better to just use in-backend snapshots straight from backend internals if you dont need to store them. > * Why is txid_current_snapshot() reading SerializableSnapshot rather > than an actually current snap as its name suggests? This isn't just > misleading, this will fail completely when SerializableSnapshot > goes away, as seems likely to happen in 8.4 (and no, we won't keep it > just because txid might want it). Why is SerializableSnapshot going away ? How will we do serialized isolation level in 8.4 then? ---------------- Hannu
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: