Re: Is the unfair lwlock behavior intended? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Is the unfair lwlock behavior intended?
Date
Msg-id 20160525192609.b3bj2sgawj2lt3yv@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Is the unfair lwlock behavior intended?  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Is the unfair lwlock behavior intended?
List pgsql-hackers
On 2016-05-25 11:15:37 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-05-25 14:09:43 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I don't think anybody was doing that? The first questions on this thread
> were about upgrading and retesting...

Something I've repeatedly wondered about around this topic is whether we
could split ProcArrayLock into one that governs entering or leaving the
procarray from the one that's for consistent snapshots.  I think there's
no need for ProcArrayAdd/ProcArrayRemove/CountDBBackends()/CancelDBBackends()/
CountUserBackends()/CountOtherDBBackends() (and potentially some more)
to conflict with GetSnapshotData()/ProcArrayEndTransaction()/
TransactionIdIsInProgress()/TransactionIdIsActive()/GetOldestXmin()/...
as long as we're careful to ensure that by the time a entry is removed
ProcArrayEndTransaction() has been called.

Greetings,

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Is the unfair lwlock behavior intended?