On 18/04/2017 15:01, Vlad Khorsun wrote: > 18.04.2017 20:21, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote: >> On 18/04/2017 13:43, Vlad Khorsun wrote: >>> Some time ago there was discussion about sharing snapshots. As for me, >>> it >>> is useful feature. Not a "must have", but useful. >>> >>> With current implementation of database snapshots (private copy of TIP) >>> it is not enough just to specify "base" transaction number to obtain its >>> snapshot, especially for Classic. >> Can you please explain more? > I mean, that "secondary" transaction should obtain somehow the private copy > of (part of) TIP created by the "base" transaction when it started. > > Read the thread "How to? Coordinating transactions for multiple > connections in > single call" started by the Sean at 02 April 2014. It contains all details.
LOL. I used same term "base transaction number" as now (even thinking it's bad) in that thread, and you, Jim and me appeared to have agreed on a solution (for the first or single time LOL). >>> But, with new snapshots acounting (based >>> on commit order, proposed by Nickolay) it will be enough to get just one >>> number from the "base" transaction. >>> >> Is it the post "Statement-level read consistency and intermediate >> versions GC" in this list or another one? > Yes, it is. BTW, the current state of that feature could be found there > > https://github.com/redsoftbiz/firebird/tree/read_consistency > > it is maintained and workable > Thanks! Adriano ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
