| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
|---|
| 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 |
| 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: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: relcache refcount |
| Date: | 2004-05-14 12:02:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20276.1084536178@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> writes:
> Why can't we keep all locks until main tx end ?
For committed subtransactions we have to do that, yes, but for aborted
subtransactions we must release. Otherwise you can't implement a retry
loop around a potentially-deadlocking operation.
> (I am assuming that a deadlock will still break the whole tx)
Wrong. We might as well not bother with the entire project.
regards, tom lane