On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 6:56 AM vignesh C wrote:
> Going by the discussion shall we conclude that we don't need to
> convert the subxids into fxid's as part of this fix.
> Let me know if any further changes need to be done.
I'm not sure, but I think the prior question is whether we want this
patch
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 8:31 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-08-05 14:44:37 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > Yeah. I think we're agreed for now that we don't want to change
> > procarray (though we still need to figure out how to compute the 64
> > bit horizons correctly and efficiently)
Hi,
On 2019-08-05 14:44:37 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Yeah. I think we're agreed for now that we don't want to change
> procarray (though we still need to figure out how to compute the 64
> bit horizons correctly and efficiently)
Hm. Is that actually hard? Can't we just use the current logic to
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 1:44 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-08-05 13:15:19 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 12:06 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 6:37 AM Thomas Munro
> > > wrote:
> > > > Thanks. This looks pretty reasonable to me, and I don't think we
Hi,
On 2019-08-05 13:15:19 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 12:06 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 6:37 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > Thanks. This looks pretty reasonable to me, and I don't think we need
> > > to worry about the subxid list for now.
> >
> > Why
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 12:06 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 6:37 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > Thanks. This looks pretty reasonable to me, and I don't think we need
> > to worry about the subxid list for now.
>
> Why not just do them all at once?
[tries for a couple of hours and ab
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 6:37 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> Thanks. This looks pretty reasonable to me, and I don't think we need
> to worry about the subxid list for now.
Why not just do them all at once?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:38 AM vignesh C wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 5:36 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:32 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > > There is also one more comment which is yet to be concluded. The
> > > comment discusses about changing subxids which are of TransactionI
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 5:36 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> Hi Vignesh,
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:32 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > In the undo system, we use full-transaction-id for transactions. For
> > rollback of prepared transactions, we were planning to use
> > FullTransactionId by combining Transa
Hi Vignesh,
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:32 PM vignesh C wrote:
> In the undo system, we use full-transaction-id for transactions. For
> rollback of prepared transactions, we were planning to use
> FullTransactionId by combining TransactionId and epoch, but as
> suggested by multiple people in that
Hi,
In the undo system, we use full-transaction-id for transactions. For
rollback of prepared transactions, we were planning to use
FullTransactionId by combining TransactionId and epoch, but as
suggested by multiple people in that email chain [1][2], the better
idea is to store Full-transactioni
11 matches
Mail list logo
