From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [RFC: bug fix?] Connection attempt block forever when the synchronous standby is not running |
Date: | 2014-07-07 16:25:51 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwF1nQK_Jzph-6rHJ3zTYj_eGazfYPs2pdZj0V6YV4Hx-w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 2014-07-07 09:57:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Well, see the comment that explains why the logic is like this now:
>
>> I think we should 'simply' make sequences assign a toplevel xid - then
>> we can get rid of that special case in RecordTransactionCommit(). And I
>> think the performance benefit of not having to wait on XLogFlush() for
>> readonly xacts due to hot prunes far outweighs the decrease due to the
>> xid assignment/commit record. I don't think that nextval()s are called
>> overly much without a later xid assigning statement.
>
> Yeah, that could well be true. I'm not sure if there are any other cases
> where we have non-xid-assigning operations that are considered part of
> what has to be flushed before reporting commit;
Maybe pg_switch_xlog().
> if there are not, I'd
> be okay with changing nextval() this way.
+1
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-07-07 16:28:10 | Re: Allowing join removals for more join types |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-07-07 16:06:14 | Re: [RFC: bug fix?] Connection attempt block forever when the synchronous standby is not running |