Re: [HACKERS] lazy vxid locks, v3

2011-08-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 12:12 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> I guess you could look at that way.  It just seemed like the obvious >> way to write the code: we do LockRefindAndRelease() only if we have a >> fast-path lock that someone else has pushed

Re: [HACKERS] lazy vxid locks, v3

2011-08-04 Thread Jeff Davis
On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 12:12 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > I guess you could look at that way. It just seemed like the obvious > way to write the code: we do LockRefindAndRelease() only if we have a > fast-path lock that someone else has pushed into the main table. OK, looks good to me. Marked "read

Re: [HACKERS] lazy vxid locks, v3

2011-08-01 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 08:12 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> > Is the "&& LocalTransactionIdIsValid(lxid)" a guard against calling >> > VirtualXactLockTableCleanup twice? Can that happen? Or is it just >> > defensive coding to avoid making an additi

Re: [HACKERS] lazy vxid locks, v3

2011-08-01 Thread Jeff Davis
On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 08:12 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > Is the "&& LocalTransactionIdIsValid(lxid)" a guard against calling > > VirtualXactLockTableCleanup twice? Can that happen? Or is it just > > defensive coding to avoid making an additional assumption? > > lxid there is just a local variable

Re: [HACKERS] lazy vxid locks, v3

2011-08-01 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > fpLocalTransactionId is redundant with the lxid, and the explanation is > that one that they have different locking semantics. That looks > reasonable, and it avoided the need for the careful ordering while > starting/ending a transaction that w

Re: [HACKERS] lazy vxid locks, v3

2011-07-31 Thread Jeff Davis
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 13:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > I took another look at v2 of my lazy vxid locks patch and realized > that it was pretty flaky in a couple of different ways. Here's a > version that I think is a bit more robust, but considering the extent > of the revisions, it probably need

[HACKERS] lazy vxid locks, v3

2011-07-20 Thread Robert Haas
I took another look at v2 of my lazy vxid locks patch and realized that it was pretty flaky in a couple of different ways. Here's a version that I think is a bit more robust, but considering the extent of the revisions, it probably needs another round of review from someone before I commit it. An