| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server: Rearrange pg_subtrans handling |
| Date: | 2004-08-24 04:30:16 |
| Message-ID: | 412AC458.1030708@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
> pg_subtrans is trivial to index --- it's a linear array subscripted by
> TransactionId. I'm not sure what we'd do to handle row locks, which
> would need a key like (DBoid, RELoid, BlockNum, LineNum) and would be
> extremely non-dense in that space.
>
> 'Tis something to think about though...
I've been thinking about it and I am wondering what the reason is that
we need to record every transaction that has a row share lock?
ie. why can't we just record the number of locks each backend has, sort
of, and use a reference counting sort of method. Per-backend in case
the backend dies and we need to discount those locks..?
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-24 04:49:32 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server: Rearrange pg_subtrans handling as |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2004-08-24 03:41:53 | Re: pgsql-server: Rearrange pg_subtrans handling as |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-24 04:39:55 | Re: HP-UX PA-RISC/Itanium 64-bit Patch and HP-UX 11.23 Patch |
| Previous Message | Shinji Teragaito | 2004-08-24 04:13:43 | HP-UX PA-RISC/Itanium 64-bit Patch and HP-UX 11.23 Patch |