This avoids the risk of creating any serious backwards-compatibility
issues: if there's anyone out there who does need SnapshotNow reads,
they just have to be sure to open the LO in read-write mode to have
fully backward compatible operation.
Comments, objections?
If you feel like it, feel free
Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Besides the MVCC issue, I am not sure it's a good idea LO being binded
> to OID. In my understanding OID is solely used to distinguish each LO
> in a database. In another word, it's just a key to LO. I think giving
> explicit key when creating a LO has som
This avoids the risk of creating any serious backwards-compatibility
issues: if there's anyone out there who does need SnapshotNow reads,
they just have to be sure to open the LO in read-write mode to have
fully backward compatible operation.
Comments, objections?
Besides the MVCC issue, I a
> I spent a little bit of time thinking about what it would mean exactly
> for large-object operations to obey MVCC, and decided that there are
> more worms in that can than I had realized. Part of the problem is
> that we have no concept of a lock on an individual LO, and thus
> operations that r
I spent a little bit of time thinking about what it would mean exactly
for large-object operations to obey MVCC, and decided that there are
more worms in that can than I had realized. Part of the problem is
that we have no concept of a lock on an individual LO, and thus
operations that really shou
