From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | "Vadim Mikheev" <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru> |
Cc: | "PostgreSQL Developers List" <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: [HACKERS] Savepoints... |
Date: | 1999-06-17 03:20:31 |
Message-ID: | 000001beb870$5b42b960$2801007e@cadzone.tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
> [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org]On Behalf Of Vadim Mikheev
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 10:13 PM
> To: PostgreSQL Developers List
> Subject: [HACKERS] Savepoints...
>
>
> To have them I need to add tuple id (6 bytes) to heap tuple
> header. Are there objections? Though it's not good to increase
> tuple header size, subj is, imho, very nice feature...
>
> Implementation is , hm, "easy":
>
> - heap_insert/heap_delete/heap_replace/heap_mark4update will
> remember updated tid (and current command id) in relation cache
> and store previously updated tid (remembered in relation cache)
> in additional heap header tid;
> - lmgr will remember command id when lock was acquired;
Does this mean that many writing commands in a transaction
require many command id-s to remember ?
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vadim Mikheev | 1999-06-17 03:58:02 | Re: [HACKERS] Savepoints... |
Previous Message | Vadim Mikheev | 1999-06-17 01:49:50 | Re: Apparent bug in _make_subplan |