| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Katsuhiko Okano <okano(dot)katsuhiko(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2 |
| Date: | 2006-08-07 20:27:41 |
| Message-ID: | 22293.1154982461@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I was thinking at what time was the most appropiate to insert or remove
> an Xid from the cache. We can do without any excl-locking because 1) we
> already assume the storing of an Xid to be atomic, and 2) no one can be
> interested in querying for an Xid before the originating transaction has
> had the chance to write a tuple with that Xid anyway.
Actually ... that fails if GetSnapshotData is going to copy subtrans
XIDs. So this area needs more thought.
> On the third hand, are we going to sh-acquire the ProcArray lock while a
> GetSnapshotData copies all subxact Xids of all running transactions?
> ProcArrayLock will become more of a contention point than it already is.
Yeah, but sharelock is better than exclusive lock ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lukas Smith | 2006-08-07 20:47:39 | Re: PostgreSQL performance enhancement when query planner fails to |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-07 20:13:38 | Re: buildfarm - make check failures for leveret on 8.0 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-08-08 01:23:26 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] log_statement output for protocol |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-08-07 20:10:14 | Re: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2 |