>Joe Conway wrote:
> Committed.
Thanks!
I'm pulling together a new version of the main patch, and it is
almost 300 lines shorter and touches five fewer files than the last
version because this went in. It should be easier for people to
scan to understand the substance of the changes without
On 09/09/2010 09:11 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> The attached patch is updated for the various comments, as well as some
> wording tweaks by me. If there are no objections I'd like to commit this
> in a day or two.
Committed.
Joe
--
Joe Conway
credativ LLC: http://www.credativ.us
Linux, PostgreSQL,
On 09/08/2010 10:02 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 08 12:12:31 -0400 2010:
>>> AFAIR it doesn't keep the first snapshot around. If it did, most of
>>> your work on snapshot list trimming would have been useless, no?
>
>> That's my poi
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 08 12:12:31 -0400 2010:
>> AFAIR it doesn't keep the first snapshot around. If it did, most of
>> your work on snapshot list trimming would have been useless, no?
> That's my point precisely. The name "IsolationUsesXactSnapsh
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message of vie sep 03 19:06:17 -0400 2010:
> >>> How about IsolationUsesXactSnapshot
>
> > I find this name confusing :-( Doesn't a READ COMMITTED transaction use
> > transaction snapshots as well?
>
> AFAIR it doesn't
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 08 12:12:31 -0400 2010:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message of vie sep 03 19:06:17 -0400 2010:
> >>> How about IsolationUsesXactSnapshot
>
> > I find this name confusing :-( Doesn't a READ COMMITTED transaction use
> > t
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message of vie sep 03 19:06:17 -0400 2010:
>>> How about IsolationUsesXactSnapshot
> I find this name confusing :-( Doesn't a READ COMMITTED transaction use
> transaction snapshots as well?
AFAIR it doesn't keep the first snapshot around.
Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message of vie sep 03 19:06:17 -0400 2010:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > +1 for adding parens; we might want to make a function of it
> > someday.
>
> > How about IsolationUsesXactSnapshot
>
> Patch attached.
I find this name confusing :-( Doesn't a READ COMMITTED
Tom Lane wrote:
> +1 for adding parens; we might want to make a function of it
> someday.
> How about IsolationUsesXactSnapshot
Patch attached.
Joe said that he'll review this weekend and probably commit in a day
or two if there are no objections.
-Kevin
*** a/src/backend/catalog/index.c
Tom Lane wrote:
> +1 for adding parens; we might want to make a function of it
> someday.
Makes sense; will do.
> I don't much like the "XactUses..." aspect of it; that's just
> about meaningless, because almost everything in PG could be said
> to be "used" by a transaction. How about
> Iso
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> XactUsesPerXactSnapshot()?
> That seems unambiguous. I think I prefer it to
> IsXactIsoLevelXactSnapshotBased, so if there are no objections, I'll
> switch to XactUsesPerXactSnapshot. The current code uses a macro
> without parentheses; are you
Robert Haas wrote:
> The current definition is:
>
> #define IsXactIsoLevelSerializable (XactIsoLevel >=
> XACT_REPEATABLE_READ)
>
> ...which is certainly a bit odd, since you'd think it would be
> comparing against XACT_SERIALIZABLE given the name.
Precisely why I want to rename it. ;-)
>
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
>> How about IsXactIsoLevelSnapshot? Just to be a bit shorter.
>
> I need two macros -- one which has the same definition as the
> current IsXactIsoLevelSerializable, to be used everywhere the old
> macro name currently is used, which conveys
Robert Haas wrote:
>> I could knock out a couple other files from the main patch if
>> people considered it acceptable to enable the SHMQueueIsDetached
>> function now, which the patch uses in several places within
>> asserts. I would remove the #ifdef NOT_USED from around the
>> (very short)
On Sep 1, 2010, at 11:02 AM, "Kevin Grittner"
wrote:
> The patch to implement true serializable transactions using SSI
> renames/rewords these things to avoid confusion. However, there are
> seven files which are changed only for this reason, and another
> where there is one "real" change of two
There are many comments in the code which use "serializable
transaction" to mean "transaction snapshot based transaction". This
doesn't matter much as long as REPEATABLE READ and SERIALIZABLE
transaction isolation levels behave identically, but will be
confusing and inaccurate when there is any di
16 matches
Mail list logo
