| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | J Smith <dark(dot)panda+lists(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Errors on missing pg_subtrans/ files with 9.3 |
| Date: | 2013-11-25 21:11:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20131125211141.GC23284@alap2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-11-25 18:06:30 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I mean that in the !KEYS_UPDATED case we don't need to abort if we're
> > only acquiring a key share...
>
> Hm, I think that's correct -- we don't need to abort. But we still need
> to wait until the updater completes. So this proposed patch is not the
> full story.
Hm. Why do we need to wait in that case? Isn't the entire point of KEY
SHARE locks *not* having to wait for !KEYS_UPDATED? ISTM in that case we
should only check whether the creating transaction has aborted because
in that case we don't need to take out a lock?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-11-25 21:25:42 | Re: why semicolon after begin is not allowed in postgresql? |
| Previous Message | David Johnston | 2013-11-25 21:08:12 | Re: why semicolon after begin is not allowed in postgresql? |