Horton

Re: Snapshot synchronization, again...

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Joachim Wieland <joe@mcknight.de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-02-22T14:50:43Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> Oh.  Well that's really silly.  At that point you might as well just
>> store the snapshot and an integer identifier in shared memory, right?
>
> Yes, that's the point I was trying to make. I believe the idea of a hash was
> that it takes less memory than storing the whole snapshot (and more
> importantly, a fixed amount of memory per snapshot). But I'm not convinced
> either that dealing with a hash is any less troublesome.

OK, sorry for taking a while to get the point.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company