Bruce Momjian wrote:
Is this a TODO?
It's for from clear that avoing an exclusive ProcArray lock on subxact
abort will bring a measurable performance benefit, so probably not.
I've actually coded a prototype for this a few months ago, to
check if it would bring any benefit at all, though I r
Thanks for the feedback.
---
Florian G. Pflug wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Is this a TODO?
>
> It's for from clear that avoing an exclusive ProcArray lock on subxact
> abort will bring a measurable performance benefit
Is this a TODO?
---
Florian G. Pflug wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Currently, we do not assume that either the childXids array, nor the xid
> >> cache in the proc array are
Tom Lane wrote:
"Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Currently, we do not assume that either the childXids array, nor the xid
cache in the proc array are sorted by ascending xid order. I believe that
we could simplify the code, further reduce the locking requirements, and
enabled a tra
"Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Currently, we do not assume that either the childXids array, nor
> the xid cache in the proc array are sorted by ascending xid order.
> I believe that we could simplify the code, further reduce the locking
> requirements, and enabled a transaction to
