From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe" |
Date: | 2012-03-09 03:46:10 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoayNvvOvePFDPxXcMydJ1qWh9f-rDC9tY5h7orkw1YH7w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Case #2 is certainly a problem for FrozenXID as well, because anything
>> that's marked with FrozenXID is going to look visible to everybody,
>> including our older snapshots. And I gather you're saying it's also a
>> problem for HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED.
>
> The problem there is that later subtransactions often have xids that
> are greater than xmax, so the xid shows as running when we do
> XidInMVCCSnapshot(), which must then be altered for this one weird
> case. I tried that and not happy with result.
Altering XidInMVCCSnapshot() seems like a good thing to avoid, but I
confess I don't quite follow what you're describing here otherwise.
>> I had assumed that the way we were
>> fixing this problem was to disable these optimizations for
>> transactions that had more than one snapshot floating around. I'm not
>> sure whether the patch does that or not, but I think it probably needs
>> to
>
> It does. I thought you already read the patch?
I glanced over it, but did not look through it in detail. I'll do a
more careful look at your next version.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-09 04:13:02 | pg_prewarm |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-03-09 01:40:01 | Re: pg_upgrade --logfile option documentation |