From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server: Rearrange pg_subtrans handling |
Date: | 2004-08-24 05:38:17 |
Message-ID: | 28790.1093325897@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>> OK, what I mean is to know if a row is locked by any backend, why can't
>> we just put a reference count of the number of locks on that row,
>> instead of recording each backend separately? Wouldn't that require a
>> fixed amount of shared mem?
> AFAICT you have to do something on top of that to allow deadlock
> detection. If transaction X has a shared row lock on A and is waiting on
> a lock for me and I want to get an exclusive row lock on A, how do I
> detect that it's a deadlock?
I think the speed complaint I was just raising could possibly be
answered by setting an infomask bit indicating that the row might
be present in a separate table of active row locks. (I'm not sure
how the bit would get cleared without race conditions, but let's
suppose that can be done.) A little hashing, a little spill-to-disk
logic, and it might be done. But that's just handwaving... anyone
want to try to fill in the details?
[ But to answer Chris' question: no, I don't see any way that this
could be a fixed-size table. You will need that spill-to-disk bit. ]
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-08-24 07:36:21 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server: Rearrange pg_subtrans handling |
Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2004-08-24 05:05:19 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server: Rearrange pg_subtrans |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-24 05:55:25 | Re: AT TIME ZONE |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2004-08-24 05:36:52 | Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900 |