| From: | "Gurjeet Singh" <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Clarence Gardner" <clarence(at)silcom(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Not your father's question about deadlocks |
| Date: | 2006-11-16 20:49:34 |
| Message-ID: | 65937bea0611161249o2ce930ar542cce00132604e3@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 11/17/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> we need a special case when we are already a member of the MultiXact:
> fall through without trying to reacquire the tuple lock.
Small implementation detail: Also keep a count of how many times the same
session requested the same lock, and do not release the lock until he
requests same number of releases.
This might add (may be significant) overhead, but I am concerned with
whether it is desirable?
Comments? Should we change HeapTupleSatisfiesUpdate's API to
> distinguish this case, or is it better to have a localized change
> in heap_lock_tuple?
>
--
gurjeet[(dot)singh](at)EnterpriseDB(dot)com
singh(dot)gurjeet(at){ gmail | hotmail | yahoo }.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-11-16 20:50:16 | Re: Accessing postgres in perl app using ssl authentication |
| Previous Message | Glen Parker | 2006-11-16 20:40:41 | Linux hard drive/device nodes for a Postgres RAID array |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-16 21:01:58 | Re: [HACKERS] Not your father's question about deadlocks |
| Previous Message | Markus Schiltknecht | 2006-11-16 20:46:51 | Re: replication docs: split single vs. multi-master |