Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 12:43 +0200, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
>> i dont really see why this would be neccessary - i understand that we
>> need to wait for transactions in the same db, but waiting for
>> transaction in another database?
> Manual says "and in addition it must wait for all existing transactions
> to terminate." This is needed for MVCC correctness and its not a bug.
No, it isn't needed for MVCC correctness. We're just out-waiting
transactions that might try to use the index and not find what they
should in it. AFAICS Hubert is right: there is no need to wait for
xacts in other DBs. (At least for non-shared indexes, but we can't
support C.I.C. on shared tables anyway.)
This would have been painful to fix in 8.2 but it seems relatively
trivial in HEAD --- we just need another filter option in
GetCurrentVirtualXIDs.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
