"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yeah. If we did want to do something more, we could acquire the lock on
> vid conditionally, and use another vid if acquiring the lock fails. But
> I don't think it's necessary.
I was thinking more along the lines of looking through the ProcArray
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
"Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Should there be new a log_line_prefix percent code for virtual
transaction ids? Or should we change the meaning of %x to be virtual
transac
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> "Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Should there be new a log_line_prefix percent code for virtual
transaction ids? Or should we change the meaning of %x to be virtual
transaction id
Tom Lane wrote:
"Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Should there be new a log_line_prefix percent code for virtual
transaction ids? Or should we change the meaning of %x to be virtual
transaction id instead of the real
"Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Should there be new a log_line_prefix percent code for virtual
>>> transaction ids? Or should we change the meaning of %x to be virtual
>>> transaction id instead of the real one
Tom Lane wrote:
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Should there be new a log_line_prefix percent code for virtual
transaction ids? Or should we change the meaning of %x to be virtual
transaction id instead of the real one.
I think the latter should be sufficient, especially if we
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Should there be new a log_line_prefix percent code for virtual
> transaction ids? Or should we change the meaning of %x to be virtual
> transaction id instead of the real one.
I think the latter should be sufficient, especially if we also are show
On 9/3/07, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marko Kreen escribió:
> > On 9/3/07, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Florian G. Pflug wrote:
> > > > Since we didn't really reach an agreement on how xid_age should behave,
> > > > I've reverted it back to the original version.
Marko Kreen escribió:
> On 9/3/07, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Florian G. Pflug wrote:
> > > Since we didn't really reach an agreement on how xid_age should behave,
> > > I've reverted it back to the original version. So with this patch,
> > > xid_age will just force assignment of
Florian G. Pflug wrote:
> Here is an updated version of my patch. This is pretty much equivalent
> to the version V2, apart from the few minor things Tom criticized. The
> changes are.
Should there be new a log_line_prefix percent code for virtual
transaction ids? Or should we change the meaning o
On 9/3/07, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Florian G. Pflug wrote:
> > Since we didn't really reach an agreement on how xid_age should behave,
> > I've reverted it back to the original version. So with this patch,
> > xid_age will just force assignment of a xid.
>
> Is this really a goo
Florian G. Pflug wrote:
> Since we didn't really reach an agreement on how xid_age should behave,
> I've reverted it back to the original version. So with this patch,
> xid_age will just force assignment of a xid.
Is this really a good idea? I'm repeating myself, but a query like
select age(xmi
I tried sending this with the actual patch attached - this time,
to pgsql-pacthes, but it seems that my mail didn't get through again.
So it've put up the patch here: http://soc.phlo.org/lazyxidassign.v3.patch
Hi
Here is an updated version of my patch. Th
13 matches
Mail list logo
