Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 22846.1192045762@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review ("Marko Kreen" <markokr@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Marko Kreen" <markokr@gmail.com> writes: > On 10/10/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> * Why is txid_current_snapshot() excluding subtransaction XIDs? That >> might be all right for the current uses in Slony/Skytools, but it seems >> darn close to a bug for any other use. > ... > But I agree, supporting subtransactions makes the API more > universal. And it wouldn't break Slony/PgQ current usage. After looking at this more closely, I think txid_current_snapshot is okay as is, but is_visible_txid is probably buggy: the latter should be folding subtransaction IDs to top-transaction IDs, no? If not, why not? I hope the answer is "no" because otherwise the code will be at huge risk from truncation of pg_subtrans, but it's not apparent why this behavior is okay. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: