Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> But should we rethink that? Your point that hot standby transactions on
>> a slave could see snapshots that were impossible on the parent was
>> disturbing. Should we look for a way to tie "transaction becomes
>> visible" to its creation of a commit WAL record? I think the fact that
>> they are not an indivisible operation is an implementation artifact, and
>> not a particularly nice one.
> Well, I agree with you that it isn't especially nice, but it seems
> like a fairly intractable problem. Currently, the standby has no way
> of knowing in what order the transactions became visible on the
> master.
Right, but if the visibility order were *defined* as the order in which
commit records appear in WAL, that problem neatly goes away. It's only
because we have the implementation artifact that "set my xid to 0 in the
ProcArray" is decoupled from inserting the commit record that there's
any difference.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
