hi,
> I've been playing with the attached patch, which adds an additional
> light-weight lock mode, LW_SHARED2. LW_SHARED2 conflicts with
> LW_SHARED and LW_EXCLUSIVE, but not with itself. The patch changes
> ProcArrayEndTransaction() to use this new mode. IOW, multiple
> processes can commit a
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 2:24 AM, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> latestCompletedXid got backward due to concurrent updates
> and it fooled TransactionIdIsInProgress?
Ah ha! I bet that's it.
I think this could be avoided by a more sophisticated locking scheme.
Instead of waking up all the people trying
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> With 80 clients (but not 32 or fewer), I occasionally get the
> following error:
>
> ERROR: t_xmin is uncommitted in tuple to be updated
>
> So it seems that there's some way in which this locking is actually
> incorrect, though I'm not seeing
I've been playing with the attached patch, which adds an additional
light-weight lock mode, LW_SHARED2. LW_SHARED2 conflicts with
LW_SHARED and LW_EXCLUSIVE, but not with itself. The patch changes
ProcArrayEndTransaction() to use this new mode. IOW, multiple
processes can commit at the same time
