Re: Prepared transaction releasing locks before deregistering its GID

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Oleksii Kliukin <alexk(at)hintbits(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Prepared transaction releasing locks before deregistering its GID
Date: 2019-02-19 09:57:59
Message-ID: 20190219095759.GW15532@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:26:04PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> May be I missed something, but why it is not possible just to move removing
> 2PC GXact before releasing transaction locks:

Because we need to keep the 2PC reference in shared memory when
releasing the locks before removing the physical file. The 2PC test
suite for recovery has good coverage, and I imagine that these blow up
with your suggestion (no time to test now, please see
009_twophase.pl).
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oleksii Kliukin 2019-02-19 09:59:33 Re: Prepared transaction releasing locks before deregistering its GID
Previous Message Higuchi, Daisuke 2019-02-19 09:38:01 RE: [Bug Fix] ECPG: could not use set xxx to default statement