Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Nope, you're on target. Although - if I were you - I would post
> the ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock version of the patch for feedback. I
> can't speak for anyone else, but I'll read it.
Here you go! :-)
This is the milestone of having full serializable behavior, albeit
with horrible performance, using the simplest implementation
possible. I didn't use ACCESS EXCLUSIVE locks, because on review it
seemed to me that a SHARE lock would be strong enough. It compiles
and passes the regression tests, and I've been testing some of the
scenarios previously used to show the snapshot anomalies; I now get
correct behavior through blocking.
I identified the points to insert predicate locking by looking for
places where ExecStoreTuple was called with a valid heap buffer; if
there is anywhere that obtains tuples from the heap without going
through that method, I have more work to do. If anyone knows of
such locations, I'd be grateful for a "heads up".
If I've done anything horribly wrong in organizing the code, that'd
be nice to hear about before I go too much farther, too.
I'm definitely not looking for this to be committed, but should I
add it to the CF page just for a "feedback" review? (I'm OK with
keeping it more ad hoc, especially if it's going to hold up the
beta at all.)
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-01-13 22:03:33|
|Subject: Re: primary key display in psql|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2010-01-13 21:49:59|
|Subject: per-user pg_service.conf|