| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: GetOldestXmin going backwards is dangerous after all |
| Date: | 2013-02-02 11:00:53 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nML0+WLsL7o1W-qWHmJf0Kcba_gdhaSY2FS9R4=FchXupw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1 February 2013 23:56, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Well, if we were tracking the latest value in shared memory, we could
> certainly clamp to that to ensure it didn't go backwards. The problem
> is where to find storage for a per-DB value.
Adding new data columns to catalogs in backbranches seems like a great
reason to have an hstore column on every catalog table.
That way we can just add anything we need without causing other problems.
Obviously something for the future.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-02-02 11:07:24 | Re: GetOldestXmin going backwards is dangerous after all |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-02-02 10:30:12 | Re: proposal - assign result of query to psql variable |