On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> Oh. Well that's really silly. At that point you might as well just >> store the snapshot and an integer identifier in shared memory, right? > > Yes, that's the point I was trying to make. I believe the idea of a hash was > that it takes less memory than storing the whole snapshot (and more > importantly, a fixed amount of memory per snapshot). But I'm not convinced > either that dealing with a hash is any less troublesome.
OK, sorry for taking a while to get the point. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
