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

[Karsten Hilbert]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 08:04:40AM +1000, Tim Churches wrote:

> 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 ? 
> 
> Have you actually asked the Postgres maintainers for these things?

No need for that. PG already does

- savepoints
- thereby commit/resume of transactions
- read-committed serialization level
- libpq can be polled for NOTIFYs

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