From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Transaction traceability - txid_status(bigint) |
Date: | 2016-12-22 01:55:06 |
Message-ID: | CAMsr+YGeXzOi4aeXpB3zk=oM4zquyp_-zO_YH-UH3yO0FUR9_g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 22 December 2016 at 07:49, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 22 December 2016 at 00:30, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> That makes everything that happens between when we acquire that lock
>> and when we release it non-interruptible, which seems undesirable. I
>> think that extra copy of oldestXid is a nicer approach.
>
> That's a side-effect I didn't realise. Given that, yes, I agree.
>
> Since we don't truncate clog much, do you think it's reasonable to
> just take XidGenLock again before we proceed? I'm reluctant to add
> another acquisition of a frequently contested lock for something 99.9%
> of the codebase won't care about, so I think it's probably better to
> add a new LWLock, and I'll resubmit on that basis, but figure it's
> worth asking.
Updated.
If you think it's better to just take XidGenLock again, let me know.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0001-Introduce-txid_status-bigint-to-get-status-of-an-xac.patch | text/x-patch | 17.8 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-12-22 02:02:01 | Re: Fix checkpoint skip logic on idle systems by tracking LSN progress |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-12-22 01:30:48 | Potential data loss of 2PC files |