| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Date: | 2010-04-21 14:11:00 |
| Message-ID: | s2v603c8f071004210711p6223333fx4c069983a991e0f6@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> The locking seems overly complex to me.
I tend to agree.
! /*
! * Callers must hold either ProcArrayLock in Exclusive mode or
! * ProcArrayLock in Shared mode *and* known_assigned_xids_lck
! * to update these values.
! */
I'm not convinced that this is either (a) correct or (b) performant.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-04-21 14:12:43 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-04-21 13:51:00 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |