Fujii Masao írta: > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 6:02 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 22:32 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: >> >>> (in commit) >>> write wal record >>> release locks/etc <xact2 can proceed from here >>> wait for sync ack >>> >>> In the first case, the contention is obviously increased. >>> With this, we are creating more idle time in the server >>> instead of letting other transactions do their jobs as soon >>> as possible. The second method was implemented in my >>> patch. Are there any drawbacks with this? >>> >> Then I respectfully suggest that you're releasing locks too early. >> >> Your proposal would allow a 2nd user to see the results of the 1st >> user's transaction before the 1st user knew about whether it had >> committed or not. >> >> I know why you want that, but I don't think its right. >> > > Agreed. That's why I put the wait before ProcArrayEndTransaction() > is called. >
Then there is no use to implement individual sync/async replicated transactions, period. An async replicated transaction that waits for a sync replicated transaction because of locks will become implicitely sync. It just waits for another transactions' sync ack. Best regards, Zoltán Böszörményi > Regards, > > -- ---------------------------------- Zoltán Böszörményi Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH Gröhrmühlgasse 26 A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de http://www.postgresql.at/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
