Re: [HACKERS] getting rid of SnapshotNow
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] getting rid of SnapshotNow |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+Tgmob3V+mm7_qLserW-xzWTYyqu2E0i8wnZGknwD-zYKkwyw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] getting rid of SnapshotNow (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] getting rid of SnapshotNow
|
Список | pgsql-odbc |
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Robert Haas escribió: >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> > Why not tell people to use SnapshotDirty if they need a >> > not-guaranteed-consistent result? At least then it's pretty obvious >> > that you're getting some randomness in with your news. > >> On further reflection, I think perhaps pgrowlocks should just register >> a fresh MVCC snapshot and use that. Using SnapshotDirty would return >> TIDs of unseen tuples, which does not seem to be what is wanted there. > > I think seeing otherwise invisible rows is useful in pgrowlocks. It > helps observe the effects on tuples written by concurrent transactions > during experimentation. But then, maybe this functionality belongs in > pageinspect instead. It does seem like it should be useful, at least as an option. But I feel like changing that ought to be separate from getting rid of SnapshotNow. It seems like too big of a behavior change to pass off as a harmless tweak. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-odbc по дате отправления: