This was applied by Tom. Thanks.
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
>
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > All of filler fields in branches, tellers and history is NULL
Tom Lane wrote:
> The patch disallows LISTEN/NOTIFY in a prepared transaction, and there
> is also a side effect on whether a transaction can see entries in
> pg_listener for its own uncommitted LISTEN commands.
I wonder if it would've been easier to make NOTIFY use SnapshotDirty to
examine pg_li
Tom Lane wrote:
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Elsewhere in our codebase where we use arrays that are enlarged as
needed, we keep track of the "allocated" size and the "used" size of the
array separately, and only call repalloc when the array fills up, and
repalloc a larger t
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Yep, patch attached. I also changed xactGetCommittedChildren to return
> the original array instead of copying it, as Alvaro suggested.
>
Any comments on the flag based approach I suggested earlier ? Am I
missin
"Pavan Deolasee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yep, patch attached. I also changed xactGetCommittedChildren to return
>> the original array instead of copying it, as Alvaro suggested.
> Any comments on the flag bas
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I didn't like it; it seemed overly complicated (consider dealing with
> XID wraparound),
We are talking about subtransactions here. I don't think we support
subtransaction wrap-around, do we ?
> and it would have problems
"Pavan Deolasee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> and it would have problems with a slow transaction
>> generating a sparse set of subtransaction XIDs.
> I agree thats the worst case. But is that common ? Thats what I
> was think
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
Wait. Subtransaction ids are local to a transaction and always start from 1.
See this:
/*
* reinitialize within-transaction counters
*/
s->subTransactionId = TopSubTransactionId;
currentSubTransactionId = TopSubTransactionId;
No, we're not talking ab
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I didn't like it; it seemed overly complicated (consider dealing with
XID wraparound),
We are talking about subtransactions here. I don't think we support
subtransaction wrap-around, do we ?
Imagine
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Subtransactions are assigned regular
> XIDs as well, just like top-level transactions.
>
Ah, got it now. I never noticed this before.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Imagine that you start a transaction just before transaction
> wrap-around, so that the top level XID is 2^31-10. Then you start 20
> subtransactions. What XIDs will they get? Now how would you map those to
> a
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The patch disallows LISTEN/NOTIFY in a prepared transaction, and there
>> is also a side effect on whether a transaction can see entries in
>> pg_listener for its own uncommitted LISTEN commands.
> I wonder if it would've been easier
12 matches
Mail list logo
