On 2014-07-24 11:17:15 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think you might be approaching this problem from the wrong end,
> though.


>  The question in my mind is: why does the
> StartTransactionCommand() / CommitTransactionCommand() pair in
> ProcessCatchupEvent() end up writing a commit record?  The obvious
> possibility that occurs to me is that maybe rereading the invalidated
> catalog entries causes a HOT prune, and maybe there ought to be some
> way for a transaction that has only done HOT pruning to commit
> asynchronously, just as we already do for transactions that only
> modify temporary tables.  Or, failing that, maybe there's a way to
> suppress synchronous commit for this particular transaction.

I think we should do what the first paragraph in
outlined. As Tom says somewhere downthread that requires some code
review, but other than that it should get rid of a fair amount of


Andres Freund

 Andres Freund                     http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to