Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
Date
Msg-id 28236.990242113@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> I am confused why we can't implement subtransactions as part of our
> command counter?  The counter is already 4 bytes long.  Couldn't we
> rollback to counter number X-10?

That'd work within your own transaction, but not from outside it.
After you commit, how will other backends know which command-counter
values of your transaction to believe, and which not?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Fix for tablename in targetlist