Re: [HACKERS] Not your father's question about deadlocks

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Gurjeet Singh" <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>
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 21:01:58
Message-ID: 964.1163710918@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

"Gurjeet Singh" <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 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.

No need for that, because there isn't any heap_unlock_tuple.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message One 2006-11-16 21:03:20 Extract between year *and* month
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-11-16 20:59:33 Re: How to crash postgres using savepoints

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gurjeet Singh 2006-11-16 21:07:35 Re: [HACKERS] Not your father's question about deadlocks
Previous Message Gurjeet Singh 2006-11-16 20:49:34 Re: [HACKERS] Not your father's question about deadlocks