On Dec17, 2010, at 16:49 , Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 15.12.2010 16:20, Florian Pflug wrote: >> On Dec14, 2010, at 15:01 , Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Florian Pflug<f...@phlo.org> wrote: >>>>> - serializable lock consistency - I am fairly certain this needs >>>>> rebasing. I don't have time to deal with it right away. That sucks, >>>>> because I think this is a really important change. >>>> I can try to find some time to update the patch if it suffers from >>>> bit-rot. Would that help? >>> >>> Yes! >> >> I've rebased the patch to the current HEAD, and re-run my FK concurrency >> test suite, >> available from https://github.com/fgp/fk_concurrency, to verify that things >> still work. >> >> I've also asserts to the callers of heap_{update,delete,lock_tuple} to >> verify (and document) >> that update_xmax may only be InvalidTransactionId if a lockcheck_snapshot is >> passed to >> heap_{update,delete,lock_tuple}. >> >> Finally, I've improved the explanation in src/backend/executor/README of how >> row locks and >> REPEATABLE READ transactions interact, and tried to state the guarantees >> provided by >> FOR SHARE and FOR UPDATE locks more precisely. >> >> I've published my work to >> https://github.com/fgp/postgres/tree/serializable_lock_consistency, >> and attached an updated patch. I'd be happy to give write access to that GIT >> repository >> to anyone who wants to help getting this committed. > > Here's some typo & style fixes for that, also available at > git://git.postgresql.org/git/users/heikki/postgres.git.
Thanks! FYI, I've pulled these into https://github.com/fgp/postgres/tree/serializable_lock_consistency best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
