| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SSI atomic commit |
| Date: | 2011-07-05 19:40:12 |
| Message-ID: | 4E13224C020000250003EFF0@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Isn't SSI *already* forcing a new acquisition of an LWLock during
> commits of read-only transactions that aren't using SSI?
During COMMIT PREPARED there is one. We could avoid that by storing
the transaction isolation level in the persistent data for a
prepared statement, but that seems inappropriate for 9.1 at this
point, and it's hard to be sure that would be a net win. Otherwise
I don't *think* there's an extra LW lock for a non-serializable
transaction (whether or not read-only). Do you see one I'm not
remembering?
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dan Ports | 2011-07-05 19:54:36 | Re: SSI atomic commit |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-07-05 19:34:45 | Re: SSI atomic commit |