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


From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: VirtualXactLockTableInsert
Date: 2008-06-27 10:06:57
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
When we move from having a virtual xid to having a real xid I don't see
any attempt to re-arrange the lock queues. Surely if there are people
waiting on the virtual xid, they must be moved across to wait on the
actual xid? Otherwise the locking queue will not be respected because we
have two things on which people might queue. Anybody explain that?

In cases where we know we will assign a real xid, can we just skip the
assignment of the virtual xid completely? For example, where an implicit
transaction is started by a DML statement. Otherwise we have to wait for
2 lock table inserts, not just one.

 Simon Riggs 
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-06-27 12:11:56
Subject: Re: Table inheritance surprise
Previous:From: Tino WildenhainDate: 2008-06-27 08:34:22
Subject: Re: Posting to hackers and patches lists

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group