On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 11:19 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > As to solutions, it cannot be acceptable to ignore some locks just > > because an xid has not been assigned. > > Even if GetRunningTransactionLocks ignores such a lock, it's eventually > WAL-logged by LogAccessExclusiveLock, isn't it?
If it were true always, I would much prefer your solution. Assuming that would then cause a race condition between the logging of the RunningXactsData and the lock, which wouldn't move us forwards. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
