| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Low hanging fruit in lazy-XID-assignment patch? |
| Date: | 2007-09-08 01:20:27 |
| Message-ID: | 2874.1189214427@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Florian G. Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> I noticed two rather cosmetic issues
> .) latestCompletedXid sounds as it might refer to the *last* completed xid,
> but it actually refers to the largest / highest completed xid. So maybe we
> should call it highestCompletedXid or largestCompletedXid.
Actually that was an intentional choice: because of the wraparound
behavior of XIDs, the "latest" value is not necessarily numerically
largest. I'm not wedded to it though.
> .) Since you mention that we assume reading and writing int4s are atomic
> operations, maybe we should mention that for safety's sake we mark the
> corresponding pointers with volatile?
Couldn't hurt.
I have a draft patch that I'll post shortly.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-09-08 01:26:51 | WIP patch for latestCompletedXid method of computing snapshot xmax |
| Previous Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2007-09-08 00:46:26 | Re: Low hanging fruit in lazy-XID-assignment patch? |