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
