From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | "<Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock |
Date: | 2011-06-03 20:50:40 |
Message-ID: | 4DE94920.7030801@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03.06.2011 23:44, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I think you'll need to just memorize the lock deletion command in
>> a backend-local list, and perform the deletion in a post-commit
>> function.
>
> Hmm. As mentioned earlier in the thread, cleaning these up doesn't
> actually have any benefit beyond freeing space in the predicate
> locking collections. I'm not sure that benefit is enough to justify
> this much new mechanism. Maybe I should just leave them alone and
> let them get cleaned up in due course with the rest of the locks.
> Any opinions on that?
Is there a chance of false positives if oid wraparound happens and a new
table gets the same oid as the old one? It's also possible for a heap to
get the OID of an old index or vice versa, will that confuse things?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-06-03 21:02:04 | Re: SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock |
Previous Message | Andrew Chernow | 2011-06-03 20:48:22 | Re: Error in PQsetvalue |