Re: Synchronized snapshots versus multiple databases
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Synchronized snapshots versus multiple databases |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 23245.1319216959@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Synchronized snapshots versus multiple databases (Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Synchronized snapshots versus multiple databases
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org> writes: > On Oct21, 2011, at 17:36 , Tom Lane wrote: >> 3. Remove the optimization that lets GetOldestXmin ignore XIDs outside >> the current database. This sounds bad, but OTOH I don't think there's >> ever been any proof that this optimization is worth much in real-world >> usage. We've already had to lobotomize that optimization for walsender >> processes, anyway. > Hm, we've told people who wanted cross-database access to tables in the > past to either > * use dblink or > * not split their tables over multiple databases in the first place, > and to use schemas instead > If we remove the GetOldestXmin optimization, we're essentially reversing > course on this. Do we really wanna go there? Huh? The behavior of GetOldestXmin is purely a backend-internal matter. I don't see how it's related to cross-database access --- or at least, changing this would not represent a significant move towards supporting that. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: