On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 01:13:46PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Kenneth Marshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:58:56AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
How would a read-only action work to block out the checkpoint?
The latch+version number is use by the checkpoint process. The
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is not a provably correct state machine
I think the discussion ends right there. You are assuming that the
commit is guaranteed to finish in X amount of time, when it is not
possible to make any such guarantee. We are not putting in an
Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is not a provably correct state machine
I think the discussion ends right there.
Yes...
Negative results are worth documenting too, IMHO.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
---(end of
Kenneth Marshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would it be possible to use a latch + version number in
this case to minimize this problem by allowing all but the checkpoint to
perform a read-only action on the latch?
How would a read-only action work to block out the checkpoint?
More generally,
Kenneth Marshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:58:56AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
How would a read-only action work to block out the checkpoint?
The latch+version number is use by the checkpoint process. The
other processes can do a read of the latch to determine if it has
