Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > Ok, great. When I read that before I thought that WAL might need > to be sent for implicit RO transactions. I will read it more > carefully again. In looking back over recent posts to see what I might have missed or misinterpreted, I now see your point. Either of these alternatives would involve potentially sending something through the WAL on commit or rollback of some serializable transactions which *did not* write anything, if they were not *declared* to be READ ONLY. If that is not currently happening (again, I confess to not having yet delved into the mysteries of writing WAL records), then we would need a new WAL record type for writing these. That said, the logic would not make it at all useful to send something for *every* such transaction, and I've rather assumed that we would want some heuristic for setting a minimum interval between notifications, whether we sent the snapshots themselves or just flags to indicate it was time to build or validate a candidate snapshot. Sorry for misunderstanding the concerns. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
