Re: Hot Standby 0.2.1

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hot Standby 0.2.1
Date: 2009-09-25 10:28:08
Message-ID: 1253874488.4449.605.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 13:14 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 19:07 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >
> >> Rather than keep the numHeldLocks counters per-proc in proc array, I
> >> think it would be simpler to have a single (or one per lock partition)
> >> counter in shared memory in lock.c. It's just an optimization to make it
> >> faster to find out that there is no loggable AccessExclusiveLocks in the
> >> system, so it really rather belongs into the lock manager.
> >
> > What lock would protect that value? The whole purpose is to avoid taking
> > the LockMgrLocks and to give something that is accessible by the locks
> > already held by GetRunningTransactionData().
>
> The lock partition lock (so we really need one counter per partition, a
> single counter would need additional locking). We're already holding
> that in LockAcquire/LockRelease when we need to increment/decrement the
> counter.

Again: The whole purpose is to avoid taking those locks. Why would we
put something behind a lock we are trying to avoid taking?

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2009-09-25 10:31:17 Docs build error in alpha1
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2009-09-25 10:27:14 Re: Streaming Replication patch for CommitFest 2009-09