RE: [HACKERS] I'm planning some changes in lmgr...

Here is the background on this email (and other like it). My corporate
office changed my email address 4 times in a 3 week period (company mergers
and such). In order to send mail, I was forced to subscribe to each list
using my new email addresses. I then had three email addresses registered
to each list. The corporate office then changed my email address again
because another individual in the company was assigned my current email
address. Apparently he had been with the company longer. Now I am getting
two copies of every email and he gets a copy of every email. I had been
trying for weeks to unsubscribe the extra emails from the lists but either
the unsubscribe was not supported, would fail, or just would not work. I
finally emailed the owner of the lists and he has corrected the problem.
The individual getting these messages apparently had enough of these email
and started returning them back to the sender. Sorry for the inconvenience.
It should not happen again. I don't think this was an intended spam.

Thanks, Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: The Hermit Hacker [SMTP:scrappy(at)hub(dot)org]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 1999 8:40 AM
To: Michael Davis
Cc: Hiroshi Inoue; Vadim Mikheev; Postgresql Developers List
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] I'm planning some changes in lmgr...

Ya know, its almost tempting to send /kernel to ppl that spam lists
like
this :(

On Wed, 5 May 1999, Michael Davis wrote:

> Your e-mail did not arrive at its intended destination. You
need to
> send it to Michael J. Davis, not Michael Davis.
>
>
> From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue @ tpf.co.jp> on 05/04/99 10:17
PM
> To: Vadim Mikheev <vadim @ krs.ru>@SMTP(at)EXCHANGE,
PostgreSQL
> Developers List <hackers @ postgreSQL.org>@SMTP(at)EXCHANGE
> cc:
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] I'm planning some changes in
lmgr...
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
> > [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org]On Behalf Of
Vadim
> Mikheev
> > Sent: Sunday, May 02, 1999 12:23 AM
> > To: PostgreSQL Developers List
> > Subject: [HACKERS] I'm planning some changes in lmgr...
> >
> >
> > but have no time to do them today and tomorrow -:(.
> >
> > 1. Add int waitMask to LOCK to speedup checking in
> LockResolveConflicts:
> > if lock requested conflicts with lock requested by any
waiter
> > (and we haven't any lock on this object) -> sleep
> >
> > 2. Add int holdLock (or use prio) to PROC to let other
know
> > what locks we hold on object (described by
PROC->waitLock)
> > while we're waiting for lock of PROC->token type on
> > this object.
> >
> > I assume that holdLock & token will let us properly
> > and efficiently order waiters in LOCK->waitProcs queue
> > (if we don't hold any lock on object -> go after
> > all waiters with holdLock > 0, etc etc etc).
> >
> > Comments?
> >
>
> First, I agree to check conflicts for ( total - own )
hodling lock
> of
> the target object if transaction has already hold some lock
on the
> object and when some conflicts are detected,the transaction
> should be queued with higher priority than transactions
which hold
> no lock on the object.
>
> Secondly, if a transaction holds no lock on the object, we
should
> check conflicts for ( holding + waiting ) lock of the
object.
>
> And I have a question as to the priority of queueing.
> Does the current definition of priority mean the urgency
> of lock ?
>
> It may prevent lock escalation in some cases.
> But is it effective to avoid deadlocks ?
> It's difficult for me to find such a case.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Hiroshi Inoue
> Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp
>
>
>
>
>

Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC
Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary:
scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org