Re: Built-in connection pool

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Subject: Re: Built-in connection pool
Date: 2010-06-28 15:32:20
Message-ID: 4C287A340200002500032BED@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:

> When preparing to deal with a new statement:
> - acquire lockX
> - if not a superuser
> - and not in an active transaction
> - and countX >= max_active_transactions
> - place current process at tail of waitX queue, and block
> - (lockX would be released while blocked)
> - increment countX
> - release lockX

There's a bug there already. This should be better:
- if not in an active transaction
- acquire lockX
- if not a superuser
- and countX >= max_active_transactions
- place current process at tail of waitX queue, and block
- (lockX would be released while blocked)
- increment countX
- release lockX

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mike Rylander 2010-06-28 15:42:15 Re: Issue: Deprecation of the XML2 module 'xml_is_well_formed' function
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-06-28 15:19:19 Re: pg_dump's checkSeek() seems inadequate