"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > If the intent is that each serializable transaction sharing > the snapshot is a separate logical transaction, it *might* hold -- I think the rules have to be that the snapshot provided to a serializable transaction must be provided by an active serializable transaction. That prevents the serializable global xmin from moving backwards; which is not allowed except during recovery processing of prepared transactions. Each transaction using the snapshot is a logically separate transaction -- they just have a shared view of the state of the data. > If the intent is that the work of one logical transaction is being > split across processes, then SSI doesn't hold up without somehow > tying all of the processes to a single SERIALIZABLEXACT; and then > the direct access to MySerializableXact falls apart. Except, as discussed on a separate, concurrent thread, that a READ ONLY transaction might find its snapshot to be safe -- at which point it no longer uses a SERIALIZABLEXACT. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
