Re: [HACKERS] Small locking bugs in hs

2010-01-20 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 14:13 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > I do understand it correctly that in CancelVirtualTransaction > LW_SHARED is > taken only so that another transaction can finish during that time? We're canceling one specific vxid, so no need to block other snapshots from being taken. Re

Re: [HACKERS] Small locking bugs in hs

2010-01-20 Thread Andres Freund
On Wednesday 20 January 2010 12:59:40 Simon Riggs wrote: > On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 04:47 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > On Saturday 16 January 2010 12:32:35 Simon Riggs wrote: > > > No. As mentioned upthread, this is not a bug. > > > > Could you also mention in a little bit more detail why not? >

Re: [HACKERS] Small locking bugs in hs

2010-01-20 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 04:47 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > On Saturday 16 January 2010 12:32:35 Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > No. As mentioned upthread, this is not a bug. > Could you also mention in a little bit more detail why not? When a cleanup record arrives without a latestRemovedXid we are fo

Re: [HACKERS] Small locking bugs in hs

2010-01-19 Thread Andres Freund
On Saturday 16 January 2010 12:32:35 Simon Riggs wrote: > On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 13:16 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > While unlikely to cause issues two new LWLockAcquire calls use the > > > wrong locking mode. > > > Patch attached. > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Small locking bugs in hs

2010-01-16 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 13:16 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > While unlikely to cause issues two new LWLockAcquire calls use the wrong > > locking mode. > > Patch attached. > > Does it make sense to add this to the 2010-01 CommitFest so we don't

Re: [HACKERS] Small locking bugs in hs

2010-01-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > While unlikely to cause issues two new LWLockAcquire calls use the wrong > locking mode. > Patch attached. Does it make sense to add this to the 2010-01 CommitFest so we don't lose track of it? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing

Re: [HACKERS] Small locking bugs in hs

2009-12-28 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2009-12-28 at 01:22 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > Btw, dont understand my questions as criticism or such. I didn't take them that way. Your questions and bug reports are welcome. It was important that HS was released in Alpha so that we can shake out bugs, issues and concerns early enoug

Re: [HACKERS] Small locking bugs in hs

2009-12-27 Thread Andres Freund
Hi Simon, Btw, dont understand my questions as criticism or such. I am really impressed by the quality of the HS patch - many thanks to you, heikki and all the others. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www

Re: [HACKERS] Small locking bugs in hs

2009-12-27 Thread Andres Freund
On Sunday 27 December 2009 23:10:09 Simon Riggs wrote: > On Sun, 2009-12-27 at 20:12 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > While unlikely to cause issues two new LWLockAcquire calls use the wrong > > locking mode. > > Patch attached. > It's important to explain why you think something is a bug, rather th

Re: [HACKERS] Small locking bugs in hs

2009-12-27 Thread Simon Riggs
On Sun, 2009-12-27 at 20:12 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > While unlikely to cause issues two new LWLockAcquire calls use the wrong > locking mode. > Patch attached. It's important to explain why you think something is a bug, rather than make that claim on its own. The locking mode was intention

[HACKERS] Small locking bugs in hs

2009-12-27 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, While unlikely to cause issues two new LWLockAcquire calls use the wrong locking mode. Patch attached. Andres From e70524baa7399972e51345d81b50377d7f15196d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andres Freund Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:28:39 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Use correct locking at two func