| From: | Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Developers List <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Cc: | dz(at)cs(dot)unitn(dot)it |
| Subject: | XIDTAG ??? |
| Date: | 1999-05-03 16:18:00 |
| Message-ID: | 372DCC38.C1B28E20@krs.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Why both
int pid;
TransactionId xid;
are used in XIDTAG?
lock.c:
* normal lock user lock
*
* lockmethod 1 2
* tag.relId rel oid 0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Due to this, user-lock LOCKTAG is always different from
normal-lock tag and so XIDTAG.lock is different also.
* tag.ItemPointerData.ip_blkid block id lock id2
* tag.ItemPointerData.ip_posid tuple offset lock id1
* xid.pid 0 backend pid
* xid.xid xid or 0 0
Why not get rid of XIDTAG.xid and use XIDTAG.pid equal
to backend pid for both lock methods?
Comments?
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-05-03 16:27:28 | Re: [HACKERS] XIDTAG ??? |
| Previous Message | Massimo Dal Zotto | 1999-05-03 16:06:21 | new patches for 6.5.0 |