On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 02:08:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Regarding the lock mechanism, I simply added some code to LockReleaseAll
> > so it gets the array of committed child Xids; on subtransaction abort,
> > the whole lock struct is scanned just li
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Regarding the lock mechanism, I simply added some code to LockReleaseAll
> so it gets the array of committed child Xids; on subtransaction abort,
> the whole lock struct is scanned just like it's done on main transaction
> abort; only those locks affilia
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 11:21:42PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ok, I created a function to copy a hash table (from dynahash). So now
> > at subtransaction start the RelationIdCache and RelationSysNameCache
> > hash tables are copied, and if the subtransa
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, I created a function to copy a hash table (from dynahash). So now
> at subtransaction start the RelationIdCache and RelationSysNameCache
> hash tables are copied, and if the subtransaction aborts the previous
> hash tables are restored.
I don't thi
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> PS: Either the list server is getting very slow or it has started to
> lose mail. I asked yesterday whether it was OK to copy the hash but
> apparently the mail didn't make it to the list. Is there something
> happening?
Not sure. I can confirm I never saw that email.
-
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 09:43:42AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm stuck trying to figure out how to decrease reference counting for
> > relcache entries at subtransaction abort.
>
> > Initially I thought I could just drop them all to zero,
>
> Nope, yo
> > Why can't we keep all locks until main tx end ?
>
> For committed subtransactions we have to do that, yes, but for aborted
> subtransactions we must release. Otherwise you can't implement a retry
> loop around a potentially-deadlocking operation.
Ok, that would certainly be good to have, bu
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why can't we keep all locks until main tx end ?
For committed subtransactions we have to do that, yes, but for aborted
subtransactions we must release. Otherwise you can't implement a retry
loop around a potentially-deadlocking operation.
> BTW, what are your plans for state saving/reversion for the lock manager
> and buffer manager? The lock state, in particular, makes these other
> problems look trivial by comparison.
Why can't we keep all locks until main tx end ? Locks are not self conflicting
are they ? So the only reason to
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm stuck trying to figure out how to decrease reference counting for
> relcache entries at subtransaction abort.
> Initially I thought I could just drop them all to zero,
Nope, you can't. An active query plan will surely have open relations.
> Incid
Hackers,
I'm stuck trying to figure out how to decrease reference counting for
relcache entries at subtransaction abort.
Initially I thought I could just drop them all to zero, because a
subtransaction boundary should be enough warranty that the entries are
no longer needed. However I now think
11 matches
Mail list logo
