| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Subtransaction commits and Hot Standby |
| Date: | 2008-10-05 18:51:10 |
| Message-ID: | 20081005185110.GC4266@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> OK, spent long time testing various batching scenarios for this using a
> custom test harness to simulate various spreads of xids in transaction
> trees. All looks fine now.
I had a look and was mostly rephrasing some comments and the README
(hopefully I didn't make any of them worse than they were), when I
noticed that the code to iterate thru pages could be refactored. I
think the change makes the algorithm in TransactionIdSetTreeStatus
easier to follow.
I also noticed that TransactionIdSetPageStatus has a "subcommit" arg
which is unexplained. I sort-of understand the point, but I think it's
better that you fill in the explanation in the header comment (marked
with XXX)
I hope I didn't break the code with the new function
set_tree_status_by_pages -- please recheck that part.
I didn't test this beyond regression tests.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| atomic_subxids.v6.patch | text/x-diff | 30.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-10-05 18:58:24 | Re: new int8 test still has problems |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-10-05 17:37:50 | Re: db_user_namespace, md5 and changing passwords |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-10-06 07:00:31 | Re: Subtransaction commits and Hot Standby |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-10-02 23:07:55 | Re: [PATCHES] Infrastructure changes for recovery |