Re: [Gnumed-devel] address@hidden: Re: [GENERAL] XMIN semantic at peril ?]

[Karsten Hilbert]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 09:06:32PM +0000, Syan Tan wrote:

> you wouldn't need xmin checking if more effort was made by the postgresql 
> people
> to cater
> for caching interactive clients , which would  be a significant group of pg 
> customers
> i would have thought. e.g something like using savepoints, atomic 
> commit/resume
> transaction , the ability to read committed in order to reload , and the 
> ability
> to poll for change notification, so that you don't need another thread to 
> listen
> for notified changes, and you can use read committed to refresh cached values.
> Too much to ask for ? 

Syan, I am not sure I can follow.

All of the above seem to be available in PostgreSQL but it
does seem to promise quite some complexity to handle
properly ?

Karsten
-- 
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346