On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 12:34:44PM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Agreed; but I am starting to get concerned about whether this
> particular area can be completed by the start of the CF. I might
> run a few days over on 2PC support. Unless ... Dan? Could you look
> into this while I chase down t
On Jan11, 2011, at 19:41 , Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 11.01.2011 20:08, Florian Pflug wrote:
>> Unfortunately, it seems that doing things this way will undermine the
>> guarantee
>> that retrying a failed SSI transaction won't fail due to the same conflict as
>> it did originally. Consider
>>
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 11.01.2011 20:08, Florian Pflug wrote:
>> Unfortunately, it seems that doing things this way will undermine
>> the guarantee that retrying a failed SSI transaction won't fail
>> due to the same conflict as it did originally. Consider
>>
>> T1> BEGIN TRANSACTION ISOL
On 11.01.2011 20:08, Florian Pflug wrote:
Unfortunately, it seems that doing things this way will undermine the guarantee
that retrying a failed SSI transaction won't fail due to the same conflict as
it did originally. Consider
T1> BEGIN TRANSACTION ISOLATION SERIALIZABLE
T1> SELECT * FROM T
T
Jeff Davis wrote:
> I don't expect this to be a huge roadblock for the feature though.
> It seems fairly contained. I haven't read the 2PC code either, but
> I don't expect that you'll need to change the rest of your
> algorithm just to support it.
Agreed; but I am starting to get concerned ab
Florian Pflug wrote:
> On Jan10, 2011, at 18:50 , Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> I'm trying not to panic here, but I haven't looked at 2PC before
>> yesterday and am just dipping into the code to support it, and
>> time is short. Can anyone give me a pointer to anything I should
>> read before I dig th
On Jan10, 2011, at 18:50 , Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I'm trying not to panic here, but I haven't looked at 2PC before
> yesterday and am just dipping into the code to support it, and time
> is short. Can anyone give me a pointer to anything I should read
> before I dig through the 2PC code, which mi
On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 11:50 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I'm trying not to panic here, but I haven't looked at 2PC before
> yesterday and am just dipping into the code to support it, and time
> is short. Can anyone give me a pointer to anything I should read
> before I dig through the 2PC code,
"Kevin Grittner" wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" wrote:
>
>> In going back through old emails to see what issues might have
>> been raised but not yet addressed for the SSI patch, I found the
>> subject issue described in a review by Jeff Davis here:
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hack
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 08:59:45AM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> > Could people fix it after the patch? ISTM that a great way to
> > test it is to make very sure it's available ASAP to a wide range
> > of people via the next alpha (or beta, if that's where we're going
> > n
David Fetter wrote:
> Could people fix it after the patch? ISTM that a great way to
> test it is to make very sure it's available ASAP to a wide range
> of people via the next alpha (or beta, if that's where we're going
> next).
People can always pull from the git repo:
git://git.postgresql
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 08:49:12AM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" wrote:
>
> > In going back through old emails to see what issues might have
> > been raised but not yet addressed for the SSI patch, I found the
> > subject issue described in a review by Jeff Davis here:
> >
>
"Kevin Grittner" wrote:
> In going back through old emails to see what issues might have
> been raised but not yet addressed for the SSI patch, I found the
> subject issue described in a review by Jeff Davis here:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg01159.php
After re
In going back through old emails to see what issues might have been
raised but not yet addressed for the SSI patch, I found the subject
issue described in a review by Jeff Davis here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg01159.php
I think this is already handled based on feed
14 matches
Mail list logo
