| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
| Cc: | "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: relcache refcount |
| Date: | 2004-05-14 11:00:21 |
| Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA40184D0D4@m0114.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> BTW, what are your plans for state saving/reversion for the lock manager
> and buffer manager? The lock state, in particular, makes these other
> problems look trivial by comparison.
Why can't we keep all locks until main tx end ? Locks are not self conflicting
are they ? So the only reason to free them would be to improve concurrency,
and imho we don't need that. I guess I am just not seeing this correctly.
(I am assuming that a deadlock will still break the whole tx)
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | pgsql | 2004-05-14 11:35:29 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during |
| Previous Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-05-14 09:33:15 | Re: pg_begintypend |