Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: time table for beta1

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Dan Ports" <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: time table for beta1
Date: 2011-04-04 18:50:37
Message-ID: 4D99CCAD020000250003C22E@gw.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
>> I see Robert committed that one already. If there's a consensus
>> that omitting the pid for committed transactions is the right
>> thing to do, I'm happy to put together a patch. I think that is a
>> better approach than trying to keep it after commit until the
>> connection closes, but all of this is sufficiently minor that
>> it's probably not worth worrying much about.
> 
> I couldn't really figure out why that would be better, but if
> there's a reason I'm fine with it.
 
If people think that showing the pid which created the lock after
the process has terminated is confusing, the reason I would lean
toward not showing it after transaction completion is that we can
check a bit-flag field which is already in front of us rather than
making calls out to other code for each lock, which might get
expensive, and perhaps compromise modularity.
 
-Kevin

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-04-04 18:52:11
Subject: Re: GUC assign hooks (was Re: wal_buffers = -1 and SIGHUP)
Previous:From: Christopher BrowneDate: 2011-04-04 18:50:13
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Uppercase SGML entity declarations

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group