From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Hao Wu <gfphoenix78(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Enables to call Unregister*XactCallback() in Call*XactCallback() |
Date: | 2022-09-26 22:05:34 |
Message-ID: | 3559256.1664229934@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2022-03-29 14:48:54 +0800, Hao Wu wrote:
>> It's a natural requirement to unregister the callback for transaction or
>> subtransaction when the callback is invoked, so we don't have to
>> unregister the callback somewhere.
> You normally shouldn'd need to do this frequently - what's your use case?
> UnregisterXactCallback() is O(N), so workloads registering / unregistering a
> lot of callbacks would be problematic.
It'd only be slow if you had a lot of distinct callbacks registered
at the same time, which doesn't sound like a common situation.
>> Luckily, we just need a few lines of code to support this feature,
>> by saving the next pointer before calling the callback.
> That seems reasonable...
Yeah. Whether it's efficient or not, seems like it should *work*.
I'm a bit inclined to call this a bug-fix and backpatch it.
I went looking for other occurrences of this code in places that have
an unregister function, and found one in ResourceOwnerReleaseInternal,
so I think we should fix that too. Also, a comment seems advisable;
that leads me to the attached v2.
regards, tom lane
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
safely-delete-callback-2.patch | text/x-diff | 1.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-09-26 22:13:39 | Re: Enables to call Unregister*XactCallback() in Call*XactCallback() |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2022-09-26 21:59:04 | Re: First draft of the PG 15 release notes |