Robert, On 08/25/2011 04:59 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > True; although there are some other complications. With a > sufficiently sophisticated allocator you can avoid mutex contention > when allocating chunks, but then you have to store a pointer to the > chunk somewhere or other, and that then requires some kind of > synchronization.
Hm.. right. > One difference with snapshots is that only the latest snapshot is of > any interest. Theoretically, yes. But as far as I understood, you proposed the backends copy that snapshot to local memory. And copying takes some amount of time, possibly being interrupted by other backends which add newer snapshots... Or do you envision the copying to restart whenever a new snapshot arrives? Regards Markus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
