Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: >> Why is it OK to drop these lines from the else condition in >> ProcArrayEndTransaction()?: >> >> /* must be cleared with xid/xmin: */ >> proc->vacuumFlags &= ~PROC_VACUUM_STATE_MASK; > > It's probably not. Oops. OK. I see that's back now. > I believe the attached patch versions address your comments > regarding the flexlock patch as well; it is also rebased over the > PGXACT patch, which has since been committed. Applies cleanly again. >> The extraWaits code still looks like black magic to me, so unless >> someone can point me in the right direction to really understand >> that, I can't address whether it's OK. > > I don't think I've changed the behavior, so it should be fine. > The idea is that something like this can happen: > > [explanation of the extraWaits behavior] Thanks. I'll spend some time reviewing this part. There is some rearrangement of related code, and this should arm me with enough of a grasp to review that. >> [gripes about modularity compromise and lack of pluggability] > let me think about that. I haven't addressed that in this > version. OK. There are a few things I found in this pass which missed in the last. One contrib module was missed, I found another typo in a comment, and I think we can reduce the include files a bit. Rather than describe it, I'm attaching a patch file over the top of your patches with what I think might be a good idea. I don't think there's anything here to merit a new round of benchmarking. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
