Hi, On 2019-07-24 17:14:39 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:24 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > but we really don't need to do any of that in this case - the only > > locker is the current backend, after all. > > > > I think this isn't great, because it'll later will cause unnecessary > > hint bit writes (although ones somewhat likely combined with setting > > XMIN_COMMITTED), and even extra work for freezing. > > > > Based on a quick look this wasn't the case before the finer grained > > tuple locking - which makes sense, there was no cases where locks would > > need to be carried forward. > > I agree that this is unfortunate. Are you planning on working on it?
Not at the moment, no. Are you planning / hoping to take a stab at it? Greetings, Andres Freund
