Hi,
i try to follow this discussion and try to understand it.
Is this discussion only about Read-only RC or about all RC transactions?
If i understand correctly this bug it look like (correct me if i am wrong):
SELECT
(SELECT COUNT(*) FROM TEST T2 WHERE T2.SOME_FIELD=1) /* Query 2 */
FROM
TEST
Hello, Carlos!
On 06/23/2014 03:19 PM, Carlos H. Cantu wrote:
> NS> Yes, for READ_ONLY + READ COMMITTED transactions you will now
> NS> inhibit GC if you keep a cursor open
> NS> for a long time.
>
> This is serious change, and I'm probably against it being the default
> behavior. So far, it is we
All,
On 06/23/2014 03:26 PM, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
> 23.06.2014 23:15, Leyne, Sean wrote:
>> Actually, without the new behaviour, the engine results are not guaranteed
>> to be correct.
> But the point is that their "correctness" depends on the application
> logic. Lots of applications using RC R
NS> Yes, for READ_ONLY + READ COMMITTED transactions you will now
NS> inhibit GC if you keep a cursor open
NS> for a long time.
This is serious change, and I'm probably against it being the default
behavior. So far, it is well advertised that transactions using RC+RO
does NOT block GC, and severa
Nikolay Samofatov писал(а) в своём письме
Mon, 23 Jun 2014 22:31:57 +0400:
> Denis,
>
> On 06/21/2014 08:10 AM, Simonov Denis wrote:
>> A long-running transaction READ READ_COMMITED will not keep the garbage?
>> Maybe we should introduce a new key TPB, if you want to maintain
>> compatibility.
23.06.2014 23:15, Leyne, Sean wrote:
>
> Actually, without the new behaviour, the engine results are not guaranteed to
> be correct.
But the point is that their "correctness" depends on the application
logic. Lots of applications using RC RO transactions will never be
affected by the cursor sta
23.06.2014 21:15, Leyne, Sean wrote:
> Actually, without the new behaviour, the engine results are not guaranteed to
> be correct.
And this is correct and predictable behaviour of TIL read committed.
> There is no dilemma -- the engine must return consistent and correct results
> **always**.
> NS> Yes, for READ_ONLY + READ COMMITTED transactions you will now
> NS> inhibit GC if you keep a cursor open for a long time.
>
> nice (sarcazm). So, dilemma is to enable your behavior, and get versions
> stall,
> or get versions not stalled by GS by usual RC Read?
Actually, without the new
Здравствуйте!
Monday, June 23, 2014, 10:31:57 PM, you wrote:
NS> Denis,
NS> On 06/21/2014 08:10 AM, Simonov Denis wrote:
>> A long-running transaction READ READ_COMMITED will not keep the garbage?
>> Maybe we should introduce a new key TPB, if you want to maintain
>> compatibility.
NS> Yes, for
Denis,
On 06/21/2014 08:10 AM, Simonov Denis wrote:
> A long-running transaction READ READ_COMMITED will not keep the garbage?
> Maybe we should introduce a new key TPB, if you want to maintain
> compatibility.
Yes, for READ_ONLY + READ COMMITTED transactions you will now inhibit GC if you
keep
Hello, Dmitry!
On 06/23/2014 04:15 AM, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
> 21.06.2014 01:52, Nikolay Samofatov wrote:
>> I attach patch for this functionality to give you an idea of
>> implementation. It depends on a couple other changes so it doesn't apply
>> to FB2.5 cleanly.
> The first thing I'm intereste
Vlad,
On 06/23/2014 03:11 AM, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
21.06.2014 0:52, Nikolay Samofatov wrote:
Hello, All!
We have encountered subtle errors and data corruptions when using complex
triggers/stored procedures in READ COMMITTED
transactions.
I assume you tell about logical data corruptions, n
Allow to specify plugin authorization statement EXECUTE STATEMENT
-
Key: CORE-4471
URL: http://tracker.firebirdsql.org/browse/CORE-4471
Project: Firebird Core
Issue Type: Improv
21.06.2014 01:52, Nikolay Samofatov wrote:
>
> I attach patch for this functionality to give you an idea of
> implementation. It depends on a couple other changes so it doesn't apply
> to FB2.5 cleanly.
The first thing I'm interested in is the performance impact in OLTP
tests similar to TPCC (wit
21.06.2014 0:52, Nikolay Samofatov wrote:
> Hello, All!
>
> We have encountered subtle errors and data corruptions when using complex
> triggers/stored procedures in READ COMMITTED
> transactions.
I assume you tell about logical data corruptions, not physical, correct ?
> Most applied program
15 matches
Mail list logo