Re: Multixid hindsight design - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Multixid hindsight design
Date
Msg-id CANP8+jLo_q_m5Svt2P5L2LVTuGQ2zvQPZBTLAG7UBi8LNCkHcw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Multixid hindsight design  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 5 June 2015 at 11:02, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
On 2015-06-05 10:45:09 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 1 June 2015 at 20:53, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
> > wrote:
> > > The beauty of this would be that the TED entries can be zapped at
> > restart,
> > > just like pg_subtrans, and pg_multixact before 9.3. It doesn't need to be
> > > WAL-logged, and we are free to change its on-disk layout even in a minor
> > > release.
> >
> > What about prepared transactions?  They can lock rows FOR SHARE that
> > survive server restarts.
> >
>
> Interesting comment. I'm not aware that we do.
>
> If we do support row locking that survives server restart, how did it work
> before 9.3?

Multixacts were persistent before 9.3 as well. A good number of the bugs
existed then as well, but their effect was much more limited. The
difference is that now multixacts don't just have to survive till the
last locker isn't running anymore (which was determined by a horizon),
but that they have to live till they're vacuumed away, since xmax might
be stored in the multixact.

Phew! Had me worried for a minute.

--
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Multixid hindsight design
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1