On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:32:46AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Perhaps it would be best to remove the general item and replace it
> with a list of more specific things that need doing - which might just
> mean #5.
Done.
--
Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAILhttp://drkp.net/
-
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Dan Ports wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:49:48PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Does this mean that the open item "more SSI loose ends" can now be
>> marked resolved?
>
> I was just looking at it and contemplating moving it to the non-blockers
> list. Of the fi
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:49:48PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Does this mean that the open item "more SSI loose ends" can now be
> marked resolved?
I was just looking at it and contemplating moving it to the non-blockers
list. Of the five items:
- (1) and (4) are resolved
- (2) isn't an issue -
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 14.06.2011 17:57, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>
>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>
>>> I did some further changes, refactoring SkipSerialization so that
>>> it's hopefully more readable, and added a comment about the
>>> side-effects. See at
On 14.06.2011 17:57, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I did some further changes, refactoring SkipSerialization so that
it's hopefully more readable, and added a comment about the
side-effects. See attached. Let me know if I'm missing something.
I do think the changes improve
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I did some further changes, refactoring SkipSerialization so that
> it's hopefully more readable, and added a comment about the
> side-effects. See attached. Let me know if I'm missing something.
I do think the changes improve readability. I don't see anything
miss
On 10.06.2011 19:05, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I found that pgindent would like to tweak whitespace in three places
in that patch, and I found an unnecessary include that I would like
to remove. Normally, I would post a new version of the patch with
those adjustments, but there's been a disquieting
"Kevin Grittner" wrote:
> I am in full agreement with this patch.
I found that pgindent would like to tweak whitespace in three places
in that patch, and I found an unnecessary include that I would like
to remove. Normally, I would post a new version of the patch with
those adjustments, but t
Dan Ports wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 01:30:27PM -0400, Dan Ports wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 07:06:18AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> Sounds reasonable, but why did you pass the snapshot to the
>>> PredicateLockPage() call but not the PredicateLockRelation()
>>> call? Oversight?
>>
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 01:30:27PM -0400, Dan Ports wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 07:06:18AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > Sounds reasonable, but why did you pass the snapshot to the
> > PredicateLockPage() call but not the PredicateLockRelation() call?
> > Oversight?
>
> Yep, just an overs
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 07:06:18AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Sounds reasonable, but why did you pass the snapshot to the
> PredicateLockPage() call but not the PredicateLockRelation() call?
> Oversight?
Yep, just an oversight; long day yesterday. I'll fix the patch shortly
(unless you can ge
Dan Ports wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 09:17:04PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> A patch is attached which just covers the predicate lock
>> acquisition, where a snapshot is available without too much pain.
>> There are two functions which acquire predicate locks where a
>> snapshot was not
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 09:17:04PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> A patch is attached which just covers the predicate lock acquisition,
> where a snapshot is available without too much pain. There are two
> functions which acquire predicate locks where a snapshot was not
> readily available: _bt_s
"Kevin Grittner" wrote:
> A patch is attached which just covers the predicate lock
> acquisition
This patch rolls that up with snapshot checking in the conflict
detection function called on read. The only other two functions
which use that macro check for conflicts on write, and I can't see
w
> Dan Ports wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 05:48:26PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> (1) Pass snapshot in to some predicate.c functions. The particular
>> functions have yet to be determined, but certainly any which
>> acquire predicate locks, and probably all which are guarded by the
>> SkipSe
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 05:48:26PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> (1) Pass snapshot in to some predicate.c functions. The particular
> functions have yet to be determined, but certainly any which acquire
> predicate locks, and probably all which are guarded by the
> SkipSerialization() macro. Sk
>From a review of recent emails I've put together a list of what I'm
going to try to do this evening, in order of attack. It's ambitious
and I may well not get to the end tonight, but I wanted to get the
issues on record in list form. If someone spots one I'm missing or
thinks I should change the
17 matches
Mail list logo
