"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: >> Any chance of upgrading the lock to a relation lock, or killing >> the serializable transaction instead? > > Absolutely. Good suggestion. Thanks! I pushed a TODO SSI comment at the appropriate point with my ideas on how best to fix this. I want to stick with the SLRU changes for now, rather than risk flushing "brain cache" on the topic just now. If Dan (or anyone else, for that matter) wants to fix this, feel free; just post first, as will I if nobody beats me to it. There are actually two spots in PredicateLockPageSplit and one in PredicateLockPageCombine where this needs to be addressed. I can't think of any other functions where we're vulnerable to having an impact on non-serializable transactions. We sure want to plug those -- I see it as critical to acceptance that we can honor the promise of no impact on any transactions at REPEATABLE READ or less strict isolation levels. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
