Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Hmm, I think it would be simpler to decide that instead of > SerializableXactHashLock, you must hold ProcArrayLock to access > LastSxactCommitSeqNo, and move the assignment of commitSeqNo to > ProcArrayTransaction(). It's probably easiest to move > LastSxactCommitSeqno to ShmemVariableCache too. There's a few > places that would then need to acquire ProcArrayLock to read > LastSxactCommitSeqno, but I feel it might still be much simpler > that way. We considered that. I think the biggest problem was that when there is no XID it wouldn't be covered by the lock on assignment. We couldn't see a good way to increment and assign the value without LW lock coverage, and we didn't want to add LW locking to that code path. If you can see a way around that issue, I agree it would be simpler. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
