Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff
Date
Msg-id 7915.1048096807@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff  (Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>)
Responses Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff  (Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>)
List pgsql-hackers
Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at> writes:
> If the sequence is "first update xmin, then set the commit bit", we
> never have an inconsistent state.  And if the change is lost, it can
> be redone by the next backend visiting the tuple.

Not if the subtransaction log state has been removed as no longer
needed.  I think a WAL entry will be essential.  (An alternative
might be to keep subtransaction state as long as we keep pg_clog
state, but that's pretty unpleasant too.)

I think we'd be a lot better off to design this so that we don't need to
alter heap tuple xmin values...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Manfred Koizar
Date:
Subject: Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff
Next
From: "Mikheev, Vadim"
Date:
Subject: Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff