| From: | Mike Beachy <mbeachy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: -1/0 virtualtransaction |
| Date: | 2021-04-27 01:06:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAEoC5=Hk+DP689K4ydsErzYN7a6tycq4-7dDfRx_C9ATGwpHzg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 6:16 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Hmm, that's an invalid VXID, which would ordinarily mean that nothing
> is holding the lock. There is a passing mention in mvcc.sgml that
> SIRead locks sometimes need to be held past transaction end, so maybe
> what you're looking at is such a lock that is no longer associated
> with a specific transaction. I have to disclaim knowing much of
> anything about the SSI code, though.
>
Hmm, yeah. I had seen discussion of this "held past transaction end" but
didn't know what to make of it.
The "Serializable Snapshot Isolation in PostgreSQL" paper (
https://drkp.net/papers/ssi-vldb12.pdf) makes me think this is a reasonable
line of inquiry.
Thanks,
Mike
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Durgamahesh Manne | 2021-04-27 04:43:19 | About to find all foreign tables are being used by sproc and view and function |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-04-26 22:16:03 | Re: -1/0 virtualtransaction |