> Tom Lane
>
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This is not a provably correct state machine
>
> I think the discussion ends right there.
Yes...
Negative results are worth documenting too, IMHO.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
---(end of broadcast)--
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is not a provably correct state machine
I think the discussion ends right there. You are assuming that the
commit is guaranteed to finish in X amount of time, when it is not
possible to make any such guarantee. We are not putting in an
unrel
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 01:13:46PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kenneth Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:58:56AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> How would a read-only action work to block out the checkpoint?
>
> > The latch+version number is use by the checkpoint process
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 01:13:46PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kenneth Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:58:56AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> How would a read-only action work to block out the checkpoint?
>
> > The latch+version number is use by the checkpoint process
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:58:56AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kenneth Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Would it be possible to use a latch + version number in
> > this case to minimize this problem by allowing all but the checkpoint to
> > perform a read-only action on the latch?
>
> How wou
> "Min Xu (Hsu)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It seems to me this is an interesting phenomena of interactions between
> > frequent events of transaction commits and infrequent events of system
> > checkpoints. A potential alternative solution to adding a new shared
> > lock to the frequent co
Kenneth Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:58:56AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> How would a read-only action work to block out the checkpoint?
> The latch+version number is use by the checkpoint process. The
> other processes can do a read of the latch to determine if i
Kenneth Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would it be possible to use a latch + version number in
> this case to minimize this problem by allowing all but the checkpoint to
> perform a read-only action on the latch?
How would a read-only action work to block out the checkpoint?
More generall
