On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 21:59 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > I think if I had not made those into procs you would have said that they > > are so similar it would aid code readability to have them be the same. > > And in fact I suggested earlier that we get rid of the unobserved xids > array, and only use recovery procs.
Last week, I think. Why are these tweaks so important? Checking pg_subtrans for every call to XidInMVCCSnapshot will destroy performance, as well you know. > > What benefit would we gain from separating them, especially since we now > > have working, tested code? > > Simplicity. That matters a lot. Removing the distinction between > unobserved xids and already-observed running transactions would slash a > lot of code. It might and it might not, but I don't believe all angles have been evaluated. But I would say that major changes such as this have resulted in weeks of work. More bugs have been introduced since feature freeze than were present beforehand. If you want this code to fail, then twisting it in lots of directions every week is exactly the way to do that. Neither of us will understand how it works and we'll take more weeks for it to settle down to the point of reviewability again. We don't have weeks any more. So far I've made every change you've asked, but there is a reasonable limit. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
