Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The way combo cid is supposed to work is that you are deleting a row > > created in your same transaction by a previous command id, so you look > > in the combo cid array to see if a match for that pair exists --- if > > not, you create a new entry and put the two cids on it. > > > So, with the combo lock cid, you do the same process, and lookups of who > > holds the lock looks at the cid combo, and if the second subtransaction > > was aborted, the first one is the lock holder. If you again lock the > > row, you create a new combo cid and use the original cid there because > > the second cid was aborted. > > No, because no process other than the originator can see the combo-cid > data structure, and for locking situations you really need other > backends to be able to know whether the tuple is locked and how.
Oh, OK, I forgot pg_subtrans is visible to all backends. > But I think my proposal of extending MultiXact would fix it; please look > at that. Sounds good. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly