Monday, September 15, 2008

Re: [HACKERS] Transaction Snapshots and Hot Standby

On Sat, 2008-09-13 at 10:48 +0100, Florian G. Pflug wrote:

> The main idea was to invert the meaning of the xid array in the snapshot
> struct - instead of storing all the xid's between xmin and xmax that are
> to be considering "in-progress", the array contained all the xid's >
> xmin that are to be considered "completed".

> The downside is that the size of the read-only snapshot is theoretically
> unbounded, which poses a bit of a problem if it's supposed to live
> inside shared memory...

Why do it inverted? That clearly has problems.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

No comments: