Re: relcache refcount

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
Cc: "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: relcache refcount
Date: 2004-05-14 11:00:21
Message-ID: 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA40184D0D4@m0114.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> BTW, what are your plans for state saving/reversion for the lock manager
> and buffer manager? The lock state, in particular, makes these other
> problems look trivial by comparison.

Why can't we keep all locks until main tx end ? Locks are not self conflicting
are they ? So the only reason to free them would be to improve concurrency,
and imho we don't need that. I guess I am just not seeing this correctly.
(I am assuming that a deadlock will still break the whole tx)

Andreas

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message pgsql 2004-05-14 11:35:29 Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during
Previous Message Gaetano Mendola 2004-05-14 09:33:15 Re: pg_begintypend