| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
| Date: | 2010-09-08 06:39:34 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTin53UUo_f_73HJWBfTaUfTLP57UZ0aMaW=rRTZ3@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 6:02 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 22:32 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
>> (in commit)
>> write wal record
>> release locks/etc <xact2 can proceed from here
>> wait for sync ack
>>
>> In the first case, the contention is obviously increased.
>> With this, we are creating more idle time in the server
>> instead of letting other transactions do their jobs as soon
>> as possible. The second method was implemented in my
>> patch. Are there any drawbacks with this?
>
> Then I respectfully suggest that you're releasing locks too early.
>
> Your proposal would allow a 2nd user to see the results of the 1st
> user's transaction before the 1st user knew about whether it had
> committed or not.
>
> I know why you want that, but I don't think its right.
Agreed. That's why I put the wait before ProcArrayEndTransaction()
is called.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2010-09-08 07:18:36 | Re: UTF16 surrogate pairs in UTF8 encoding |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-08 03:05:40 | Re: git: uh-oh |