From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] [pgsql-patches] Phantom Command IDs, updated patch |
Date: | 2007-02-08 21:10:25 |
Message-ID: | 19748.1170969025@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> The way combo cid is supposed to work is that you are deleting a row
> created in your same transaction by a previous command id, so you look
> in the combo cid array to see if a match for that pair exists --- if
> not, you create a new entry and put the two cids on it.
> So, with the combo lock cid, you do the same process, and lookups of who
> holds the lock looks at the cid combo, and if the second subtransaction
> was aborted, the first one is the lock holder. If you again lock the
> row, you create a new combo cid and use the original cid there because
> the second cid was aborted.
No, because no process other than the originator can see the combo-cid
data structure, and for locking situations you really need other
backends to be able to know whether the tuple is locked and how.
But I think my proposal of extending MultiXact would fix it; please look
at that.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-02-08 21:14:52 | Re: [PATCHES] [pgsql-patches] Phantom Command IDs, updated patch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-08 21:03:45 | Re: [PATCHES] [pgsql-patches] Phantom Command IDs, updated patch |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-02-08 21:14:52 | Re: [PATCHES] [pgsql-patches] Phantom Command IDs, updated patch |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-02-08 21:09:42 | Re: Feature: POSIX Shared memory support |