Re: loose ends in lazy-XID-assigment patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: loose ends in lazy-XID-assigment patch
Date
Msg-id 21217.1189019422@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: loose ends in lazy-XID-assigment patch  ("Florian G. Pflug" <fgp@phlo.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Florian G. Pflug" <fgp@phlo.org> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> This seems fairly undesirable :-( not least because you can't tell one
>> prepared xact from another and thus can't see which locks belong to
>> each.  But I'm unsure what to do about it.

> We could make the VXID in the gxact struct be
> backendId=InvalidBackendId, lxid=xid. That'd be still an invalid vxid, but not
> the same for every prepared transaction.

Hmm, that would work.

> If we take this further, we could get rid of the lock on the xid completely,

Maybe, but let's not go there for now.  I was already bending the rules
to push this into 8.3 --- I think further improvement needs to wait for
8.4.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: loose ends in lazy-XID-assigment patch
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Should pointers to PGPROC be volatile-qualified?