| From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: XID wraparound and busy databases |
| Date: | 2007-08-15 20:54:02 |
| Message-ID: | 200708151654.04528.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wednesday 15 August 2007 13:54, Tom Lane wrote:
> Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> > Aren't there potential issues with keeping the same XID if a transaction
> > in the middle has modified data?
>
> I don't see any, as long as you take a new snapshot.
>
I'm a little confused, wouldnt the transaction that waits 30 minutes before
modifying data need to get an XID that jives with the system when it's
transaction started, not when it began manipulating data? Would it really
be safe to take a new snapshot at that time, istm concurrent writers might
have caused potential issues by that point.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-08-15 20:54:17 | Re: Index Tuple Compression Approach? |
| Previous Message | Chris Browne | 2007-08-15 20:03:37 | Re: Index Tuple Compression Approach? |