On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 01:31:11AM -0400, Dan Ports wrote:
> Yes, I suspect it can be done better. The reason it's tricky is a lock
> ordering issue; part of releasing a SerializableXact has to be done
> while holding SerializableXactHashLock and part has to be done without
> it (because it involves taking partition locks). Reworking the order of
> these things might work, but would require some careful thought since
> most of the code is shared with the non-abort cleanup paths. And yes,
> it's definitely the time for that.
...by which I mean it's definitely *not* the time for that, of course.
Dan
--
Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAIL http://drkp.net/
