|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)|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
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.
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
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2016-12-22 02:02:01||Re: Fix checkpoint skip logic on idle systems by tracking LSN progress|
|Previous Message||Michael Paquier||2016-12-22 01:30:48||Potential data loss of 2PC files|