From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
Cc: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: TOAST-table vacuuming (was Re: Idea for reducing pl anning time) |
Date: | 2000-12-15 23:08:08 |
Message-ID: | 14100.976921688@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
>> We'd still want XID keys for the locks that are used to wait for a
>> particular transaction to complete (eg when waiting to update
>> a tuple). I think that's OK since VACUUM doesn't need to hold any
>> such locks, but it'd probably mean making separate lmgr API entry
>> points for those locks as opposed to normal table-level locks.
> In this case XID is used as key in LOCKTAG, ie in lock identifier,
> but we are going to change XIDTAG, ie just holder identifier.
> No new entry will be required.
Oh, OK. What say I rename the data structure to HOLDERTAG or something
like that, so it's more clear what it's for? Any suggestions for a
name?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-12-15 23:09:33 | Re: Views as FROM subselects |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-12-15 23:05:18 | Re: CURRENT/OLD keywords still broken |