| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Introduce group locking to prevent parallel processes from deadl |
| Date: | 2016-02-16 19:31:36 |
| Message-ID: | 4950.1455651096@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Yeah, you're right. Attached is a draft patch that tries to clean up
> that and a bunch of other things that you raised.
I've been reviewing this patch, and I had a question: why do we need to
bother with a lockGroupLeaderIdentifier field? It seems totally redundant
with the leader's pid field, ie, why doesn't BecomeLockGroupMember simply
compare leader->pid with the PID it's passed? For some more safety, it
could also verify that leader->lockGroupLeader == leader; but I don't
see what the extra field is buying us.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-16 20:15:14 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Introduce group locking to prevent parallel processes from deadl |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-16 18:43:38 | pgsql: Improve documentation about CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Catalin Iacob | 2016-02-16 20:06:29 | Re: proposal: PL/Pythonu - function ereport |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-02-16 19:08:02 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |