From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: loose ends in lazy-XID-assigment patch |
Date: | 2007-09-05 19:10:22 |
Message-ID: | 21217.1189019422@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Florian G. Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> This seems fairly undesirable :-( not least because you can't tell one
>> prepared xact from another and thus can't see which locks belong to
>> each. But I'm unsure what to do about it.
> We could make the VXID in the gxact struct be
> backendId=InvalidBackendId, lxid=xid. That'd be still an invalid vxid, but not
> the same for every prepared transaction.
Hmm, that would work.
> If we take this further, we could get rid of the lock on the xid completely,
Maybe, but let's not go there for now. I was already bending the rules
to push this into 8.3 --- I think further improvement needs to wait for
8.4.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-09-05 19:16:47 | Re: Should pointers to PGPROC be volatile-qualified? |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-09-05 19:09:21 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_regress config |