RE: TOAST-table vacuuming (was Re: Idea for reducing pl anning time)

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: RE: TOAST-table vacuuming (was Re: Idea for reducing pl anning time)
Date: 2000-12-15 22:44:33
Message-ID: 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D31FF@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> We'd still want XID keys for the locks that are used to wait for a
> particular transaction to complete (eg when waiting to update
> a tuple). I think that's OK since VACUUM doesn't need to hold any
> such locks, but it'd probably mean making separate lmgr API entry
> points for those locks as opposed to normal table-level locks.

In this case XID is used as key in LOCKTAG, ie in lock identifier,
but we are going to change XIDTAG, ie just holder identifier.
No new entry will be required.

Vadim

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mikheev, Vadim 2000-12-15 22:45:10 RE: TOAST-table vacuuming (was Re: Idea for reducing pl anning time)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-12-15 21:56:53 Re: 7.1 (current) unwanted NOT NULL constraint inserted