On 22 December 2016 at 00:30, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That makes everything that happens between when we acquire that lock > and when we release it non-interruptible, which seems undesirable. I > think that extra copy of oldestXid is a nicer approach. That's a side-effect I didn't realise. Given that, yes, I agree. Since we don't truncate clog much, do you think it's reasonable to just take XidGenLock again before we proceed? I'm reluctant to add another acquisition of a frequently contested lock for something 99.9% of the codebase won't care about, so I think it's probably better to add a new LWLock, and I'll resubmit on that basis, but figure it's worth asking. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
