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

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: 2016-12-22 01:55:06
Message-ID: CAMsr+YGeXzOi4aeXpB3zk=oM4zquyp_-zO_YH-UH3yO0FUR9_g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Introduce-txid_status-bigint-to-get-status-of-an-xac.patch text/x-patch 17.8 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
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