Re: Snapshot synchronization, again...

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> Oh.  Well that's really silly.  At that point you might as well just
>> store the snapshot and an integer identifier in shared memory, right?
>
> Yes, that's the point I was trying to make. I believe the idea of a hash was
> that it takes less memory than storing the whole snapshot (and more
> importantly, a fixed amount of memory per snapshot). But I'm not convinced
> either that dealing with a hash is any less troublesome.

OK, sorry for taking a while to get the point.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company