On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 09:41 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 07:55 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> Making some effort to transfer locks instead of acquiring+releasing > >> would eliminate the need for having extra lock space available when > >> switching from hot standby mode to normal operation. > > > > This isn't very clear. You started by saying you were quite eager to > > always grant and then release; this sounds like you don't want that now, > > but you now again like the approach I had already attempted to take. > > Yeah, I haven't made up my mind. What's in there now is certainly > broken, so we need to do something.
Agreed > The simplest approach is the best > would be to > revert the changes in lock_twophase_recover(), while transfering the > locks with something like AtPrepare_Locks() would be more robust in the > face of shared memory shortage. Will look into it -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
