From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: lazy vxid locks, v3 |
Date: | 2011-08-01 16:12:41 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoarkrqQjFdKZC=-z1p4p+Oaoethef0euLZ4yDpCdNpezQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 08:12 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > Is the "&& LocalTransactionIdIsValid(lxid)" a guard against calling
>> > VirtualXactLockTableCleanup twice? Can that happen? Or is it just
>> > defensive coding to avoid making an additional assumption?
>>
>> lxid there is just a local variable storing the value that we
>> extracted from fpLocalTransactionId while holding the lock. I named
>> it that way just as a mnemonic for the type of value that it was, not
>> intending to imply that it was copied from MyProc->lxid.
>
> I know, this is the other purpose of fpLocalTransactionId that I was
> talking about. Is it just a guard against calling
> VirtualXactLockTableCleanup twice?
I guess you could look at that way. It just seemed like the obvious
way to write the code: we do LockRefindAndRelease() only if we have a
fast-path lock that someone else has pushed into the main table.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2011-08-01 16:42:01 | PgWest CFP extended for 12 days |
Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2011-08-01 16:04:48 | Compressing the AFTER TRIGGER queue |