On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> On 2016-09-10 17:23:21 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> > >>> >>> I may be missing something here, but why would it contend on a lock, >>> as per locking scheme proposed by Alvaro, access to sequence object >>> will need a share lock on buffer page. >> >> To make checkpointing/bgwriter work correctly we need exclusive locks on >> pages while writing..., or some new lock level preventing the page from >> being written out, while "shared dirtying" locks are being held. >> > > Right and I think you have a very valid concern, but if we think that > storing multiple sequences on a same page is a reasonable approach, > then we can invent some locking mechanism as indicated by you such > that two writes on same page won't block each other, but they will be > blocked with bgwriter/checkpointer.
This thread has died a couple of weeks back, so I am marking it as returned with feedback by seeing the discussion that has been done. Feel free to update the patch if you think that's not adapted. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
