Re: Snapshot synchronization, again...

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Joachim Wieland
Тема Re: Snapshot synchronization, again...
Дата
Msg-id AANLkTimiyDbGFMh2A4WOk=mH9F4nCr9eQ7XS=ko2msAX@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Snapshot synchronization, again...  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Ответы Re: Snapshot synchronization, again...  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> Disadvantage of b: It doesn't allow a snapshot to be installed on a
>> different server. It requires a serializable open transaction to hold
>> the snapshot.
>
> Why does it require a serializable transaction?  You could simply
> register the snapshot in any transaction.  (Of course, the net effect
> would be pretty similar to a serializable transaction).

I am not assuming that the publishing transaction blocks until its
snapshot is being picked up. A read committed transaction would get a
new snapshot for every other query, so the published snapshot is no
longer represented by an actual backend until it is being picked up by
one. Since nobody is holding off xmin/GlobalXmin, eventually vacuum
would remove tuples that the published-but-not-yet-picked-up snapshot
should still be able to see, no?

Joachim


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: and it's not a bunny rabbit, either
Следующее
От: Joachim Wieland
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Snapshot synchronization, again...