* Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010315 17:08] wrote:
> At 16:55 15/03/01 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >* Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010315 16:46] wrote:
> >> At 16:17 15/03/01 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Lost data is probably better than incorrect data. Either use locks
> >> >or a copying mechanism. People will depend on the data returned
> >> >making sense.
> >> >
> >>
> >> But with per-backend data, there is only ever *one* writer to a given set
> >> of counters. Everyone else is a reader.
> >
> >This doesn't prevent a reader from getting an inconsistant view.
> >
> >Think about a 64bit counter on a 32bit machine. If you charged per
> >megabyte, wouldn't it upset you to have a small chance of loosing
> >4 billion units of sale?
> >
> >(ie, doing a read after an addition that wraps the low 32 bits
> >but before the carry is done to the top most signifigant 32bits?)
>
> I assume this means we can not rely on the existence of any kind of
> interlocked add on 64 bit machines?
>
>
> >Ok, what what if everything can be read atomically by itself?
> >
> >You're still busted the minute you need to export any sort of
> >compound stat.
>
> Which is why the backends should not do anything other than maintain the
> raw data. If there is atomic data than can cause inconsistency, then a
> dropped UDP packet will do the same.
The UDP packet (a COPY) can contain a consistant snapshot of the data.
If you have dependancies, you fit a consistant snapshot into a single
packet.
--
-Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
