| From: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] HOT WIP Patch - version 2 |
| Date: | 2007-02-20 15:04:39 |
| Message-ID: | 2e78013d0702200704x447ced85hd6e62c0002c0ae01@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On 2/20/07, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > "Recently dead" means "still live to somebody", so those tids better not
> > change either. But I don't think that's what he meant. I'm more
> > worried about the deadlock possibilities inherent in trying to upgrade a
> > buffer lock. We do not have deadlock detection for LWLocks.
>
> I am guessing he is going to have to release the lock, then ask for an
> exclusive one.
Yes, thats what is done. Since we try to prune the HOT-update chain
even in the SELECT path, we upgrade the lock only if we are sure
that there is atleast one tuple that can be removed from the chain
or the root needs to be fixed (broken ctid chain for some reason).
Thanks,
Pavan
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-02-20 15:08:04 | Re: [HACKERS] HOT WIP Patch - version 2 |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2007-02-20 15:01:45 | Re: [HACKERS] HOT WIP Patch - version 2 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-02-20 15:08:04 | Re: [HACKERS] HOT WIP Patch - version 2 |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2007-02-20 15:01:45 | Re: [HACKERS] HOT WIP Patch - version 2 |