Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 04:37:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Here I present the nested transactions patch and the phantom Xids patch
> > > that goes with it.
> > 
> > I looked at the phantom XIDs stuff a bit.  I still have little confidence
> > that the concept is correct :-( but here are some comments on the code
> > level.
> Ok.  I for one think this got much more complex than I had originally
> thought it would be.  I agree the changes to Set/Get Xmin/Xmax are way
> beyond what one would want, but the alternative would be to spread the
> complexity into their callers and I think that would be much worse.
> I don't have a lot of confidence in this either.  The patch will be
> available in archives if anybody wants to implement this in a cleaner
> and safer way; I'll continue working on the rest of the things you
> pointed out in the subtransactions patch.

I am sorry to have given Alvaro another idea that didn't work.  However,
thinking of options, I wonder if instead of phantom xids, we should do
phantom cids.  Because only the local backend looks at the command
counter (cid).  I think it might be alot cleaner.  The phantom cid would
have a tuple bit set indicating that instead of being a cid, it is an
index into an array of cmin/cmax pairs.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to