Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > 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.
Yeah ... this patch creats the need to hold both SerializableXactHashLock and ProcArrayLock during transaction commit, which is a bit scary from a deadlock-risk perspective, and not pleasant from the concurrency standpoint either. It'd be better to push some functionality into the procarray code. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers