Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I've been trying to think of ways to solve these problems by having a >> main xact and all its subxacts share a common CID sequence (ie, a >> subxact would have its own xid but would not start CID over at one). >> If you assume that, then Bruce's idea may indeed work, since you would >> never replace xmin in a way that would shift the interpretation of cmin >> into a different CID sequence. But I suspect there is a simpler way to >> solve it given that constraint.
> I thought about using a global command counter. The problem there is > that there is no way to control the visibility of tuples by other > transactions on commit except going back end fixing up tuples, which is > unacceptable. No, I said own xid --- so the "phantom xid" part is still there. But your idea definitely does *not* work unless you use a single CID sequence for the whole main xact; and I'm still wondering if there's not a simpler implementation possible given that assumption. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match