| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | VirtualXactLockTableInsert |
| Date: | 2008-06-27 10:06:57 |
| Message-ID: | 1214561217.3845.317.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
When we move from having a virtual xid to having a real xid I don't see
any attempt to re-arrange the lock queues. Surely if there are people
waiting on the virtual xid, they must be moved across to wait on the
actual xid? Otherwise the locking queue will not be respected because we
have two things on which people might queue. Anybody explain that?
In cases where we know we will assign a real xid, can we just skip the
assignment of the virtual xid completely? For example, where an implicit
transaction is started by a DML statement. Otherwise we have to wait for
2 lock table inserts, not just one.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-06-27 12:11:56 | Re: Table inheritance surprise |
| Previous Message | Tino Wildenhain | 2008-06-27 08:34:22 | Re: Posting to hackers and patches lists |