| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Transaction traceability - txid_status(bigint) |
| Date: | 2016-12-21 23:49:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAMsr+YH8EN8VdHPBD2vnH7aTqBym4rpFu0H3tDx5pPAmQriwmA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-12-22 00:04:46 | Re: Why does plpython delay composite type resolution? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-12-21 22:35:25 | Re: Speedup twophase transactions |