"Mikheev, Vadim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> We'd still want XID keys for the locks that are used to wait for a
>> particular transaction to complete (eg when waiting to update
>> a tuple). I think that's OK since VACUUM doesn't need to hold any
>> such locks, but it'd probably mean making separate lmgr API entry
>> points for those locks as opposed to normal table-level locks.
> In this case XID is used as key in LOCKTAG, ie in lock identifier,
> but we are going to change XIDTAG, ie just holder identifier.
> No new entry will be required.
Oh, OK. What say I rename the data structure to HOLDERTAG or something
like that, so it's more clear what it's for? Any suggestions for a
name?
regards, tom lane
