From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Remove HeapTuple and Buffer dependency for predicate locking functions |
Date: | 2019-07-31 17:50:52 |
Message-ID: | 20190731175052.av2kpjvicjs45pm4@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-07-31 09:57:58 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:02 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > Hm. I wonder if we somehow ought to generalize the granularity scheme
> > for predicate locks to not be tuple/page/relation. But even if, that's
> > probably a separate patch.
>
> What do you have in mind?
My concern is that continuing to inferring the granularity levels from
the tid doesn't seem like a great path forward. An AMs use of tids might
not necessarily be very amenable to that, if the mapping isn't actually
block based.
> Perhaps you just want to give those things different labels, "TID
> range" instead of page, for the benefit of "logical" TID users?
> Perhaps you want to permit more levels? That seems premature as long
> as TIDs are defined in terms of blocks and offsets, so this stuff is
> reflected all over the source tree...
I'm mostly wondering if the different levels shouldn't be computed
outside of predicate.c.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-07-31 17:55:48 | Re: Remove HeapTuple and Buffer dependency for predicate locking functions |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-07-31 17:49:08 | Re: Patch for SortSupport implementation on inet/cdir |