On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 12:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > [ sinval lock management needs redesign ]
>
> Yup it does.
I wrote a redesigned, simplified version of my earlier patch. Enclosed
here for discussion only, not expecting this to be the final version.
Comments at top of patch explain it.
The
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've completed a review of all of the LWlocking in the backends. This is
> documented in the enclosed file. I would propose that we use this as
> comments in lwlock.h or in the README, if people agree.
I don't think that putting this list in as documentati
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 19:32 +0200, Florian G. Pflug wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 10:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> 1. The ProcArrayLock is acquired Exclusive-ly by only one
> >>> remaining operation: XidCacheRemoveRunningXids()
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 10:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
1. The ProcArrayLock is acquired Exclusive-ly by only one
remaining operation: XidCacheRemoveRunningXids(). Reducing things
to that level is brilliant work, Florian and Tom.
It would
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 10:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 1. The ProcArrayLock is acquired Exclusive-ly by only one remaining
> > operation: XidCacheRemoveRunningXids(). Reducing things to that level is
> > brilliant work, Florian and Tom.
>
> It would be bri
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. The ProcArrayLock is acquired Exclusive-ly by only one remaining
> operation: XidCacheRemoveRunningXids(). Reducing things to that level is
> brilliant work, Florian and Tom.
It would be brilliant if it were true, but it isn't. Better look again.
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 13:31 +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 9/11/07, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 5. ReadNewTransactionId() is only called now by GetNextXidAndEpoch(),
> > but I can't find a caller of that anywhere in core or contrib. Can those
> > now be removed?
>
> GetNextXidAndEpo
On 9/11/07, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 5. ReadNewTransactionId() is only called now by GetNextXidAndEpoch(),
> but I can't find a caller of that anywhere in core or contrib. Can those
> now be removed?
GetNextXidAndEpoch() is needed for external modules to use
8-byte transaction ids
I've completed a review of all of the LWlocking in the backends. This is
documented in the enclosed file. I would propose that we use this as
comments in lwlock.h or in the README, if people agree.
A number of points emerge from that analysis:
1. The ProcArrayLock is acquired Exclusive-ly by only
