On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:57:05AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > > 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. > > I don't understand why a single counter is needed for phantom xids. We > keep the cmin/cmax on the tuple already, and our own backend can look up > the xmin/xmax that goes with the phantom.
Not sure either way (maybe you are right), but I use the global counter anyway because some tests would become a very ugly mess if I didn't. I think the phantom idea is also simpler with the global counter. And I see no reason to use local counter. We certainly are not hitting the limit with the global counter, as Tom pointed out recently in a thread about the aborted CID bitmaps. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "Crear es tan difícil como ser libre" (Elsa Triolet) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
