On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 08:57:11AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> I am sorry to have given Alvaro another idea that didn't work.

It allowed me to learn a lot of cool tricks, so it wasn't wasted work.
The only think I'm sorry about is that I should have used the time for
something more useful, like tackling the remaining problems in the
nested xacts implementation proper.

> 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.

Yeah, maybe this can work.  I'm not going to try however, at least not
now.  If somebody else wants to try, be my guest.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"El conflicto es el camino real hacia la unión"


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to