On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Yeah. Actually, consistent with the above, I discovered that as long
> as we consult both the active snapshot stack and the pairingheap of
> registered snapshots, it seems to be fine to
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think just iterating through the active snapshots would have been
> fine. Afaics there's no guarantee that the first active snapshot pushed
> is the relevant one - in contrast to registered one, which are ordered
> by virtue of the heap.
A
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>>
>>> New version attached.
>>
>> +static inline void
>> +InitToastSnapshot
On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>> New version attached.
>
> +static inline void
> +InitToastSnapshot(Snapshot snapshot, XLogRecPtr lsn)
> +{
> + snapshot->satisf
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> New version attached.
>
+static inline void
+InitToastSnapshot(Snapshot snapshot, XLogRecPtr lsn)
+{
+ snapshot->satisfies = HeapTupleSatisfiesToast;
+ snapshot->lsn = lsn;
+}
Here, d
On 2016-07-28 23:08:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I think just iterating through the active snapshots would have been
> > fine. Afaics there's no guarantee that the first active snapshot pushed
> > is the relevant one - in contrast to regi
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think just iterating through the active snapshots would have been
> fine. Afaics there's no guarantee that the first active snapshot pushed
> is the relevant one - in contrast to registered one, which are ordered
> by virtue of the heap.
I
On 2016-07-28 15:40:48 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> Also, I wonder why it's right to use
> >> pairingheap_first() instead of looking at the oldest snapshot on the
> >> active snapshot stack, or conversely why that is right and this is
> >>
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Why did you decide to introduce MaximumXLogRecPtr? Wouldn't just using
> InvalidXLogRecPtr do the trick? That already prevents errors.
Oh, right.
>> Also, I wonder why it's right to use
>> pairingheap_first() instead of looking at the oldes
Hi,
On 2016-07-26 15:13:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item now needs a permanent owner. Would any other
> >> committer like to take ownership? If this role
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item now needs a permanent owner. Would any other
>> committer like to take ownership? If this role interests you, please read
>> this thread and the policy link
11 matches
Mail list logo
