On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 14.06.2011 17:57, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Heikki Linnakangasheikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
I did some further changes, refactoring SkipSerialization so that
it's hopefully more
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:49:48PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Does this mean that the open item more SSI loose ends can now be
marked resolved?
I was just looking at it and contemplating moving it to the non-blockers
list. Of the five items:
- (1) and (4) are resolved
- (2) isn't an issue --
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Dan Ports d...@csail.mit.edu wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:49:48PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Does this mean that the open item more SSI loose ends can now be
marked resolved?
I was just looking at it and contemplating moving it to the non-blockers
list.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:32:46AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Perhaps it would be best to remove the general item and replace it
with a list of more specific things that need doing - which might just
mean #5.
Done.
--
Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAILhttp://drkp.net/
--
On 14.06.2011 17:57, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Heikki Linnakangasheikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
I did some further changes, refactoring SkipSerialization so that
it's hopefully more readable, and added a comment about the
side-effects. See attached. Let me know if I'm missing
On 10.06.2011 19:05, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I found that pgindent would like to tweak whitespace in three places
in that patch, and I found an unnecessary include that I would like
to remove. Normally, I would post a new version of the patch with
those adjustments, but there's been a disquieting
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
I did some further changes, refactoring SkipSerialization so that
it's hopefully more readable, and added a comment about the
side-effects. See attached. Let me know if I'm missing something.
I do think the changes improve
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
I am in full agreement with this patch.
I found that pgindent would like to tweak whitespace in three places
in that patch, and I found an unnecessary include that I would like
to remove. Normally, I would post a new version of the patch with
Dan Ports wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 09:17:04PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
A patch is attached which just covers the predicate lock
acquisition, where a snapshot is available without too much pain.
There are two functions which acquire predicate locks where a
snapshot was not readily
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 07:06:18AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Sounds reasonable, but why did you pass the snapshot to the
PredicateLockPage() call but not the PredicateLockRelation() call?
Oversight?
Yep, just an oversight; long day yesterday. I'll fix the patch shortly
(unless you can get
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 01:30:27PM -0400, Dan Ports wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 07:06:18AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Sounds reasonable, but why did you pass the snapshot to the
PredicateLockPage() call but not the PredicateLockRelation() call?
Oversight?
Yep, just an oversight;
Dan Ports d...@csail.mit.edu wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 01:30:27PM -0400, Dan Ports wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 07:06:18AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Sounds reasonable, but why did you pass the snapshot to the
PredicateLockPage() call but not the PredicateLockRelation()
call?
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 05:48:26PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
(1) Pass snapshot in to some predicate.c functions. The particular
functions have yet to be determined, but certainly any which acquire
predicate locks, and probably all which are guarded by the
SkipSerialization() macro. Skip
Dan Ports wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 05:48:26PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
(1) Pass snapshot in to some predicate.c functions. The particular
functions have yet to be determined, but certainly any which
acquire predicate locks, and probably all which are guarded by the
Kevin Grittner wrote:
A patch is attached which just covers the predicate lock
acquisition
This patch rolls that up with snapshot checking in the conflict
detection function called on read. The only other two functions
which use that macro check for conflicts on write, and I can't see
why
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 09:17:04PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
A patch is attached which just covers the predicate lock acquisition,
where a snapshot is available without too much pain. There are two
functions which acquire predicate locks where a snapshot was not
readily available:
16 matches
Mail list logo
