Re: [HACKERS] LogStandbySnapshot (was another thread)

2010-05-06 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 09:12 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > I concur that the idea is that we deal at replay with the fact that the > snapshot lags behind. At replay, any locks/XIDs in the snapshot that > have already been committed/aborted are ignored. For any locks/XIDs > taken just after the

Re: [HACKERS] LogStandbySnapshot (was another thread)

2010-05-04 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 13:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> * LogStandbySnapshot is merest fantasy: no guarantee that either the >> XIDs list or the locks list will be consistent with the point in WAL >> where it will get inserted. What's worse, locking things down enough >> to g

[HACKERS] LogStandbySnapshot (was another thread)

2010-05-04 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 13:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > * LogStandbySnapshot is merest fantasy: no guarantee that either the > XIDs list or the locks list will be consistent with the point in WAL > where it will get inserted. What's worse, locking things down enough > to guarantee consistency would