| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hot Standby 0.2.1 |
| Date: | 2009-09-25 09:58:46 |
| Message-ID: | 1253872726.4449.581.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 19:07 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Rather than keep the numHeldLocks counters per-proc in proc array, I
> think it would be simpler to have a single (or one per lock partition)
> counter in shared memory in lock.c. It's just an optimization to make it
> faster to find out that there is no loggable AccessExclusiveLocks in the
> system, so it really rather belongs into the lock manager.
What lock would protect that value? The whole purpose is to avoid taking
the LockMgrLocks and to give something that is accessible by the locks
already held by GetRunningTransactionData().
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-09-25 10:04:44 | Re: Hot Standby 0.2.1 |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-09-25 09:56:37 | Re: Hot Standby 0.2.1 |