Re: [PATCH] Transaction traceability - txid_status(bigint)

On 22 December 2016 at 07:49, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 22 December 2016 at 00:30, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> That makes everything that happens between when we acquire that lock
>> and when we release it non-interruptible, which seems undesirable. I
>> think that extra copy of oldestXid is a nicer approach.
>
> That's a side-effect I didn't realise. Given that, yes, I agree.
>
> Since we don't truncate clog much, do you think it's reasonable to
> just take XidGenLock again before we proceed? I'm reluctant to add
> another acquisition of a frequently contested lock for something 99.9%
> of the codebase won't care about, so I think it's probably better to
> add a new LWLock, and I'll resubmit on that basis, but figure it's
> worth asking.

Updated.

If you think it's better to just take XidGenLock again, let me know.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services