From 763808788245dc742dfb5226a0ed67a5f32613d4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bruce Momjian Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:47:58 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Remove email file. --- doc/TODO.detail/cursor | 530 ----------------------------------------- 1 file changed, 530 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 doc/TODO.detail/cursor diff --git a/doc/TODO.detail/cursor b/doc/TODO.detail/cursor deleted file mode 100644 index c87c57476e..0000000000 --- a/doc/TODO.detail/cursor +++ /dev/null @@ -1,530 +0,0 @@ -From pgsql-general-owner+M19848=candle.pha.pa.us=pgman@postgresql.org Fri Jan 25 10:36:36 2002 -Return-path: -Received: from server1.pgsql.org (www.postgresql.org [64.49.215.9]) - by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with SMTP id g0PFaZe16098 - for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:36:36 -0500 (EST) -Received: (qmail 35750 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2002 15:34:38 -0000 -Received: from unknown (HELO postgresql.org) (64.49.215.8) - by www.postgresql.org with SMTP; 25 Jan 2002 15:34:38 -0000 -Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([192.204.191.242]) - by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0PFDAl28120 - for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:13:10 -0500 (EST) - (envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) -Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) - by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0PFCqf25364; - Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:12:52 -0500 (EST) -To: Hiroshi Inoue -cc: Bruce Momjian , - Florian Wunderlich , pgsql-general@postgresql.org -Subject: Re: [GENERAL] persistent portals/cursors (between transactions) -In-Reply-To: <3C510D24.8E1FDF7F@tpf.co.jp> -References: <200201250319.g0P3Jq022575@candle.pha.pa.us> <23244.1011932544@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3C510D24.8E1FDF7F@tpf.co.jp> -Comments: In-reply-to Hiroshi Inoue - message dated "Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:45:40 +0900" -Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:12:51 -0500 -Message-ID: <25361.1011971571@sss.pgh.pa.us> -From: Tom Lane -Precedence: bulk -Sender: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org -Status: OR - -Hiroshi Inoue writes: -> Tom Lane wrote: ->> If it's not holding any locks, I can guarantee you it's not insensitive. ->> Consider VACUUM, or even DROP TABLE. - -> It's already possible to keep a lock accross transactions. -> So it would keep an AccessShareLock across transactions. - -AccessShareLock would fend off DROP/ALTER TABLE, but not VACUUM anymore. -We'd need to invent Yet Another lock type that would prevent VACUUM. -Clearly that's perfectly doable. - -But: having just finished a lot of work to ensure that VACUUM could run -in parallel with all "normal" database operations, I'm not that thrilled -at the prospect of introducing a new mechanism that will block VACUUM. -Especially not one that's *designed* to hold its lock for a long period -of time. This will just get us right back into all the operational -problems that lazy VACUUM was intended to get around. For example, this -one: if transaction A has an insensitive-cursor lock on table T, and a -VACUUM comes along to vacuum T and blocks waiting for the lock, then -when subsequent transaction B wants to create an insensitive cursor on T -it's going to be forced to queue up behind the VACUUM. - -While temp tables may seem like an ugly, low-tech way to support -insensitive cursors, I think they may have more merit than you realize. - - regards, tom lane - ----------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- -TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster - -From pgsql-general-owner+M19849=candle.pha.pa.us=pgman@postgresql.org Fri Jan 25 11:21:44 2002 -Return-path: -Received: from server1.pgsql.org (www.postgresql.org [64.49.215.9]) - by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with SMTP id g0PGLhe19804 - for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:21:44 -0500 (EST) -Received: (qmail 65425 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2002 16:15:14 -0000 -Received: from unknown (HELO postgresql.org) (64.49.215.8) - by www.postgresql.org with SMTP; 25 Jan 2002 16:15:14 -0000 -Received: from post.webmailer.de (natpost.webmailer.de [192.67.198.65]) - by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0PG5il56844 - for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:05:44 -0500 (EST) - (envelope-from fwunderlich@devbrain.de) -Received: from faxdial.hq.factor3.com (p3E9ED0CC.dip.t-dialin.net [62.158.208.204]) - by post.webmailer.de (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA07886; - Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:05:46 +0100 (MET) -Received: from hq.factor3.com (florian@main.hq.factor3.com [192.168.1.2]) - by faxdial.hq.factor3.com (8.11.1/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g0PG4P210606; - Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:04:25 +0100 -Message-ID: <3C518231.F65DC636@hq.factor3.com> -Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:05:05 +0100 -From: Florian Wunderlich -X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.17 i686) -X-Accept-Language: en -MIME-Version: 1.0 -To: Tom Lane -cc: Hiroshi Inoue , Bruce Momjian , - pgsql-general@postgresql.org -Subject: Re: [GENERAL] persistent portals/cursors (between transactions) -References: <200201250319.g0P3Jq022575@candle.pha.pa.us> <23244.1011932544@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3C510D24.8E1FDF7F@tpf.co.jp> <25361.1011971571@sss.pgh.pa.us> -Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -Precedence: bulk -Sender: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org -Status: OR - -Tom Lane wrote: -> -> Hiroshi Inoue writes: -> > Tom Lane wrote: -> >> If it's not holding any locks, I can guarantee you it's not insensitive. -> >> Consider VACUUM, or even DROP TABLE. -> -> > It's already possible to keep a lock accross transactions. -> > So it would keep an AccessShareLock across transactions. -> -> AccessShareLock would fend off DROP/ALTER TABLE, but not VACUUM anymore. -> We'd need to invent Yet Another lock type that would prevent VACUUM. -> Clearly that's perfectly doable. -> -> But: having just finished a lot of work to ensure that VACUUM could run -> in parallel with all "normal" database operations, I'm not that thrilled -> at the prospect of introducing a new mechanism that will block VACUUM. -> Especially not one that's *designed* to hold its lock for a long period -> of time. This will just get us right back into all the operational -> problems that lazy VACUUM was intended to get around. For example, this -> one: if transaction A has an insensitive-cursor lock on table T, and a -> VACUUM comes along to vacuum T and blocks waiting for the lock, then -> when subsequent transaction B wants to create an insensitive cursor on T -> it's going to be forced to queue up behind the VACUUM. - -Why do you have to lock the whole table when all you want is just one -set of rows from a set of versions? Am I missing something here? - -When you're talking about in-transaction cursors for the above example, -why would the cursor need anything more than the transaction A needs -anyway? And for cross-transaction cursors, why lock the whole table when -you could use the transaction information from the transaction in which -the cursor was declared? - -Generally spoken, where's the difference between an insensitive -persistent cursor and a still running transaction? - -> While temp tables may seem like an ugly, low-tech way to support -> insensitive cursors, I think they may have more merit than you realize. - -Obviously, that's the easy way to do it, and lots of other databases -make use of that already to implement insensitive cursors (see my other -post). But as the long-term goal should be updateable insensitive -persistent cursors, I think the temp table solution will get really -messy. - ----------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- -TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? - -http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html - -From pgsql-general-owner+M19851=candle.pha.pa.us=pgman@postgresql.org Fri Jan 25 11:50:42 2002 -Return-path: -Received: from server1.pgsql.org (www.postgresql.org [64.49.215.9]) - by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with SMTP id g0PGoge22600 - for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:50:42 -0500 (EST) -Received: (qmail 80652 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2002 16:45:09 -0000 -Received: from unknown (HELO postgresql.org) (64.49.215.8) - by www.postgresql.org with SMTP; 25 Jan 2002 16:45:09 -0000 -Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([192.204.191.242]) - by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0PGOUl75295 - for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:24:30 -0500 (EST) - (envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) -Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) - by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0PGOFf25891; - Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:24:15 -0500 (EST) -To: Florian Wunderlich -cc: Hiroshi Inoue , Bruce Momjian , - pgsql-general@postgresql.org -Subject: Re: [GENERAL] persistent portals/cursors (between transactions) -In-Reply-To: <3C518231.F65DC636@hq.factor3.com> -References: <200201250319.g0P3Jq022575@candle.pha.pa.us> <23244.1011932544@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3C510D24.8E1FDF7F@tpf.co.jp> <25361.1011971571@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3C518231.F65DC636@hq.factor3.com> -Comments: In-reply-to Florian Wunderlich - message dated "Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:05:05 +0100" -Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:24:15 -0500 -Message-ID: <25888.1011975855@sss.pgh.pa.us> -From: Tom Lane -Precedence: bulk -Sender: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org -Status: OR - -Florian Wunderlich writes: -> When you're talking about in-transaction cursors for the above example, -> why would the cursor need anything more than the transaction A needs -> anyway? - -It wouldn't. - -> And for cross-transaction cursors, why lock the whole table when -> you could use the transaction information from the transaction in which -> the cursor was declared? - -The problem is to keep the rows that are supposed to be still visible to -you from disappearing. If other backends think that transaction A is -history, they will not think that they need to preserve rows that would -have been visible to A, but are not visible to any still-running -transaction. - -[ ... thinks for awhile ... ] Maybe we could extend the notion of -"oldest XMIN" a little. Perhaps what each backend should record in the -PROC array is not just the oldest XMIN visible to its current -transaction, but the oldest XMIN visible to either its current xact or -any of its open cross-transaction cursors. That together with an -AccessShareLock on tables referenced by the cursors might work. - -A drawback of this approach is that opening a cursor and sitting on it -for a long time would effectively defeat VACUUM activity --- it wouldn't -be blocked, but it wouldn't be able to reclaim rows either. Anywhere, -not only in the tables actually used by the cursor. - - regards, tom lane - ----------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- -TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster - -From Inoue@tpf.co.jp Fri Jan 25 11:58:04 2002 -Return-path: -Received: from p2272.nsk.ne.jp ([210.145.18.145]) - by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g0PGw3e24273 - for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:58:03 -0500 (EST) -Received: from mcadnote1 (ppm139.noc.fukui.nsk.ne.jp [61.198.95.39]) - by p2272.nsk.ne.jp (8.9.3/3.7W-20000722) with SMTP id BAA07477; - Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:57:47 +0900 (JST) -From: "Hiroshi Inoue" -To: "Tom Lane" -cc: "Bruce Momjian" , - "Florian Wunderlich" , - -Subject: RE: [GENERAL] persistent portals/cursors (between transactions) -Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:57:54 +0900 -Message-ID: -MIME-Version: 1.0 -Content-Type: text/plain; - charset="iso-2022-jp" -Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -X-Priority: 3 (Normal) -X-MSMail-Priority: Normal -X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) -In-Reply-To: <25361.1011971571@sss.pgh.pa.us> -X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 -Importance: Normal -Status: OR - -> -----Original Message----- -> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us] -> -> Hiroshi Inoue writes: -> > Tom Lane wrote: -> >> If it's not holding any locks, I can guarantee you it's not -> insensitive. -> >> Consider VACUUM, or even DROP TABLE. -> -> > It's already possible to keep a lock accross transactions. -> > So it would keep an AccessShareLock across transactions. -> -> AccessShareLock would fend off DROP/ALTER TABLE, but not VACUUM anymore. - -Really ? VACUUM FULL conflicts with AccessShareLock from the -first. If new vacuum does wrong thing with persistent read-only cursors -it would do the wrong thing with the current cursors as well. -Of cource as Vadim mentioned before, HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum() -should take the transaction id in which the cursor was opened into -account. - -regards, -Hiroshi Inoue - - - -From pgsql-general-owner+M19852=candle.pha.pa.us=pgman@postgresql.org Fri Jan 25 12:04:58 2002 -Return-path: -Received: from server1.pgsql.org (www.postgresql.org [64.49.215.9]) - by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with SMTP id g0PH4ve25258 - for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:04:57 -0500 (EST) -Received: (qmail 91567 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2002 17:04:25 -0000 -Received: from unknown (HELO postgresql.org) (64.49.215.8) - by www.postgresql.org with SMTP; 25 Jan 2002 17:04:25 -0000 -Received: from post.webmailer.de (natpost.webmailer.de [192.67.198.65]) - by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0PGxNl89850 - for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:59:23 -0500 (EST) - (envelope-from fwunderlich@devbrain.de) -Received: from faxdial.hq.factor3.com (p3E9ED0CC.dip.t-dialin.net [62.158.208.204]) - by post.webmailer.de (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA15976; - Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:59:27 +0100 (MET) -Received: from hq.factor3.com (florian@main.hq.factor3.com [192.168.1.2]) - by faxdial.hq.factor3.com (8.11.1/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g0PGwC210992; - Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:58:12 +0100 -Message-ID: <3C518EC9.FDE6DDC3@hq.factor3.com> -Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:58:49 +0100 -From: Florian Wunderlich -X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.17 i686) -X-Accept-Language: en -MIME-Version: 1.0 -To: Tom Lane -cc: Hiroshi Inoue , Bruce Momjian , - pgsql-general@postgresql.org -Subject: Re: [GENERAL] persistent portals/cursors (between transactions) -References: <200201250319.g0P3Jq022575@candle.pha.pa.us> <23244.1011932544@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3C510D24.8E1FDF7F@tpf.co.jp> <25361.1011971571@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3C518231.F65DC636@hq.factor3.com> <25888.1011975855@sss.pgh.pa.us> -Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -Precedence: bulk -Sender: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org -Status: OR - -> > And for cross-transaction cursors, why lock the whole table when -> > you could use the transaction information from the transaction in which -> > the cursor was declared? -> -> The problem is to keep the rows that are supposed to be still visible to -> you from disappearing. If other backends think that transaction A is -> history, they will not think that they need to preserve rows that would -> have been visible to A, but are not visible to any still-running -> transaction. -> -> [ ... thinks for awhile ... ] Maybe we could extend the notion of -> "oldest XMIN" a little. Perhaps what each backend should record in the -> PROC array is not just the oldest XMIN visible to its current -> transaction, but the oldest XMIN visible to either its current xact or -> any of its open cross-transaction cursors. That together with an -> AccessShareLock on tables referenced by the cursors might work. -> -> A drawback of this approach is that opening a cursor and sitting on it -> for a long time would effectively defeat VACUUM activity --- it wouldn't -> be blocked, but it wouldn't be able to reclaim rows either. Anywhere, -> not only in the tables actually used by the cursor. - -Isn't that exactly what beginning a transaction and keeping it -uncommitted for a long time would do too? - -I see the problem - your last sentence - but getting rid of that would -mean to not only save an oldest XMIN, but also a reference to all tables -that this not-quite-a-xact uses, kind of like a "selective transaction". -I doubt that there really are any problems in the real world though, so -having a naive implementation first would be fine too. - -So from the vacuum perspective, it looks like more than just one -transaction is running per backend, right? Probably I don't understand -anything at all, or that's what I suggested way back in my second or -third mail. Whatever. Assuming I understood a bit here, a read-write -cross-transaction cursor shouldn't be too hard to implement then either. - ----------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- -TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org - -From pgsql-general-owner+M19855=candle.pha.pa.us=pgman@postgresql.org Fri Jan 25 12:21:10 2002 -Return-path: -Received: from server1.pgsql.org (www.postgresql.org [64.49.215.9]) - by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with SMTP id g0PHLAe26624 - for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:21:10 -0500 (EST) -Received: (qmail 97865 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2002 17:15:35 -0000 -Received: from unknown (HELO postgresql.org) (64.49.215.8) - by www.postgresql.org with SMTP; 25 Jan 2002 17:15:35 -0000 -Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([192.204.191.242]) - by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0PH6Nl94616 - for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:06:23 -0500 (EST) - (envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) -Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) - by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0PH69f26446; - Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:06:09 -0500 (EST) -To: "Hiroshi Inoue" -cc: "Bruce Momjian" , - "Florian Wunderlich" , - pgsql-general@postgresql.org -Subject: Re: [GENERAL] persistent portals/cursors (between transactions) -In-Reply-To: -References: -Comments: In-reply-to "Hiroshi Inoue" - message dated "Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:57:54 +0900" -Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:06:08 -0500 -Message-ID: <26443.1011978368@sss.pgh.pa.us> -From: Tom Lane -Precedence: bulk -Sender: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org -Status: OR - -"Hiroshi Inoue" writes: ->> AccessShareLock would fend off DROP/ALTER TABLE, but not VACUUM anymore. - -> Really ? VACUUM FULL conflicts with AccessShareLock from the -> first. - -I was speaking of lazy VACUUM, of course. - -> If new vacuum does wrong thing with persistent read-only cursors -> it would do the wrong thing with the current cursors as well. - -No, because current cursors don't span transactions. - -> Of cource as Vadim mentioned before, HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum() -> should take the transaction id in which the cursor was opened into -> account. - -I haven't read all of that thread yet; maybe Vadim already had the idea -I just had of playing games with oldest-XMIN. - - regards, tom lane - ----------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- -TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate -subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your -message can get through to the mailing list cleanly - -From tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us Fri Jan 25 12:07:42 2002 -Return-path: -Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (root@[192.204.191.242]) - by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g0PH7fe25517 - for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:07:41 -0500 (EST) -Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) - by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0PH7Pf26466; - Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:07:25 -0500 (EST) -To: Florian Wunderlich -cc: Hiroshi Inoue , Bruce Momjian , - pgsql-general@postgresql.org -Subject: Re: [GENERAL] persistent portals/cursors (between transactions) -In-Reply-To: <3C518EC9.FDE6DDC3@hq.factor3.com> -References: <200201250319.g0P3Jq022575@candle.pha.pa.us> <23244.1011932544@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3C510D24.8E1FDF7F@tpf.co.jp> <25361.1011971571@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3C518231.F65DC636@hq.factor3.com> <25888.1011975855@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3C518EC9.FDE6DDC3@hq.factor3.com> -Comments: In-reply-to Florian Wunderlich - message dated "Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:58:49 +0100" -Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:07:24 -0500 -Message-ID: <26463.1011978444@sss.pgh.pa.us> -From: Tom Lane -Status: OR - -Florian Wunderlich writes: -> Isn't that exactly what beginning a transaction and keeping it -> uncommitted for a long time would do too? - -Sure, but then you haven't got a cross-transaction cursor, only a plain -cursor. - - regards, tom lane - -From Inoue@tpf.co.jp Fri Jan 25 12:23:39 2002 -Return-path: -Received: from p2272.nsk.ne.jp (p2272.nsk.ne.jp [210.145.18.145]) - by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g0PHNce26772 - for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:23:38 -0500 (EST) -Received: from mcadnote1 (ppm103.noc.fukui.nsk.ne.jp [61.198.95.3]) - by p2272.nsk.ne.jp (8.9.3/3.7W-20000722) with SMTP id CAA08121; - Sat, 26 Jan 2002 02:23:18 +0900 (JST) -From: "Hiroshi Inoue" -To: "Florian Wunderlich" -cc: "Bruce Momjian" , "Tom Lane" , - , "Jan Wieck" -Subject: RE: [GENERAL] persistent portals/cursors (between transactions) -Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 02:23:26 +0900 -Message-ID: -MIME-Version: 1.0 -Content-Type: text/plain; - charset="us-ascii" -Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -X-Priority: 3 (Normal) -X-MSMail-Priority: Normal -X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) -In-Reply-To: <3C515739.74CCA819@hq.factor3.com> -X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 -Importance: Normal -Status: OR - -> -----Original Message----- -> From: florian@hq.factor3.com [mailto:florian@hq.factor3.com]On -> -> -> Hiroshi, that's exactly what I need, though I am not sure if we are all -> really talking about the same thing. -> -> In case I misunderstood something: as far as I know, SQL92 defines that -> a cursor is by default sensitive, which means that it displays the data -> from all comitted transactions at any time. If the data changes, so does -> what the cursor returns. - -AFAIK SQL92's default is indeterminate which guarantees nothing -about sensitivity. Though we don't have insensitive cursors yet -INSENSITIVE cursors are very natural for MVCC and it's not hard -to implement. In reality the current cursors see no changes after -the cursor was opened other than the ones made by the bakend -itself. - -regards, -Hiroshi Inoue - -From pgsql-general-owner+M19860=candle.pha.pa.us=pgman@postgresql.org Fri Jan 25 13:16:18 2002 -Return-path: -Received: from server1.pgsql.org (www.postgresql.org [64.49.215.9]) - by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with SMTP id g0PIGHe03507 - for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 13:16:17 -0500 (EST) -Received: (qmail 25543 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2002 18:14:36 -0000 -Received: from unknown (HELO postgresql.org) (64.49.215.8) - by www.postgresql.org with SMTP; 25 Jan 2002 18:14:36 -0000 -Received: from post.webmailer.de (natpost.webmailer.de [192.67.198.65]) - by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0PHjpl13108 - for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:45:51 -0500 (EST) - (envelope-from fwunderlich@devbrain.de) -Received: from faxdial.hq.factor3.com (p3E9ED0CC.dip.t-dialin.net [62.158.208.204]) - by post.webmailer.de (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA01771; - Fri, 25 Jan 2002 18:45:55 +0100 (MET) -Received: from hq.factor3.com (florian@main.hq.factor3.com [192.168.1.2]) - by faxdial.hq.factor3.com (8.11.1/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g0PHiO211360; - Fri, 25 Jan 2002 18:44:24 +0100 -Message-ID: <3C51999B.260171D6@hq.factor3.com> -Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 18:44:59 +0100 -From: Florian Wunderlich -X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.17 i686) -X-Accept-Language: en -MIME-Version: 1.0 -To: Tom Lane -cc: Hiroshi Inoue , Bruce Momjian , - pgsql-general@postgresql.org -Subject: Re: [GENERAL] persistent portals/cursors (between transactions) -References: <200201250319.g0P3Jq022575@candle.pha.pa.us> <23244.1011932544@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3C510D24.8E1FDF7F@tpf.co.jp> <25361.1011971571@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3C518231.F65DC636@hq.factor3.com> <25888.1011975855@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3C518EC9.FDE6DDC3@hq.factor3.com> <26463.1011978444@sss.pgh.pa.us> -Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -Precedence: bulk -Sender: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org -Status: OR - -Tom Lane wrote: -> > Isn't that exactly what beginning a transaction and keeping it -> > uncommitted for a long time would do too? -> -> Sure, but then you haven't got a cross-transaction cursor, only a plain -> cursor. - -Sorry for being unclear - I wanted to say that this problem obviously -already exists, so there's not a new (conceptual) problem here. - -I'm sure you read the second part of my post where I suggested what a -possible solution could look like. - ----------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- -TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? - -http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html - -- 2.40.0