Re: loose ends in lazy-XID-assigment patch

"Florian G. Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> This seems fairly undesirable :-( not least because you can't tell one
>> prepared xact from another and thus can't see which locks belong to
>> each. But I'm unsure what to do about it.

> We could make the VXID in the gxact struct be
> backendId=InvalidBackendId, lxid=xid. That'd be still an invalid vxid, but not
> the same for every prepared transaction.

Hmm, that would work.

> If we take this further, we could get rid of the lock on the xid completely,

Maybe, but let's not go there for now. I was already bending the rules
to push this into 8.3 --- I think further improvement needs to wait for
8.4.

regards, tom lane