From: | "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: remove lock protection on HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum |
Date: | 2006-06-07 01:34:47 |
Message-ID: | e65ag0f3e65ag0$3f3$1@news.hub.org@news.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> wrote
>
> The overall performance improvement might be marginal but why not if it is
> right. What I cares is the correctness. As I understand, the orginal code
> puts a shared lock (1) to prevent the vacuum process to move tuples around
> so the hint bits change may happen in a wrong place; (2) to prevent other
> operations holding EXCLUSIVE lock to change bits at the same time.
>
I realized I made an aweful mistake. The shared lock also (3) to prevent
other operations holding EXCLUSIVE lock to change the xid fields at the
same. So the final conclusion is: the original code is right and my patch is
terriblly wrong :-(
Regards,
Qingqing
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2006-06-07 01:42:54 | Re: table/index fillfactor control |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-06 22:52:28 | Re: [HACKERS] Win32 sysconfig -> pg_service.conf |