Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Rajeev rastogi
> <rajeev.rast...@huawei.com> wrote:
>> Now when we grant the lock to particular transaction, depending on type of
>> transaction, bit
>> Mask will be set for either holdMaskByAutoTx or holdMaskByNormalTx.
>> Similar when lock is ungranted, corresponding bitmask will be reset.
> That sounds pretty ugly, not to mention the fact that it will cause a
> substantial increase in the amount of memory required to store
> PROCLOCKs. It will probably slow things down, too.
More to the point, why isn't it a flat-out bad idea? I can see no
justification for distinguishing normal and autonomous transactions
at this level.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
