Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump
Kevin Grittner <kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov>
From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "Greg Smith" <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "Joachim Wieland" <joe@mcknight.de>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-12-06T18:58:15Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes: >> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> No. See subtransactions. > >> Subtransactions are included in snapshots? > > Sure, see GetSnapshotData(). You could avoid it by setting > suboverflowed, but that comes at a nontrivial performance cost. Yeah, sorry for blurting like that before I checked. I was somewhat panicked that I'd missed something important for SSI, because my XidIsConcurrent check just uses xmin, xmax, and xip; I was afraid what I have would fall down in the face of subtransactions. But on review I found that I'd thought that through and (discussion in in the archives) I always wanted to associate the locks and conflicts with the top level transaction; so that was already identified before checking for overlap, and it was therefore more efficient to just check that. Sorry for the "senior moment". :-/ Perhaps a line or two of comments about that in the SSI patch would be a good idea. And maybe some tests involving subtransactions.... -Kevin