"Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So when a RI check locks a parent, you would not be able to update the
> parent in a later subtrans. I can imagine, that the error would be a
> problem in a select for update loop, because there you usually want to
> update the row.
No, i
> As for what I think we *should* do near-term, I'm pretty strongly
> tempted to suggest that we just throw an error if a subtransaction
tries
> to upgrade an upper transaction's shared lock to exclusive.
So when a RI check locks a parent, you would not be able to update the
parent
in a later sub
Tom Lane wrote:
I'm testing the patch currently. I was a bit surprised to find the
without_oid test failing, but it makes sense because I'm using a
MAXALIGN=8 machine. I suppose Heikki tested on MAXALIGN=4.
That's right.
Thanks for the review!
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http:/
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Combo is OK, because it's a *combination* of two CommandIds.
>>
>> That means they are ComboCommandIds or CCIs.
> CCI is CommandCounterIncrement to me, so let's not use that
> abbreviation.
Agreed. I looked for a bit at adding
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 15:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Packed doesn't seem to have quite the right connotation either --- it
> > >> sounds like it means there are two separable fields in the CID value.
> >
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 15:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Packed doesn't seem to have quite the right connotation either --- it
> >> sounds like it means there are two separable fields in the CID value.
> >>
> >> Maybe "composite cid"?
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 creat
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
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Humm, sorry, obviously this makes no sense at all because I mentally
> mixed the Xid locker and the Cids.
After thinking a bit, I have a sketch of a solution.
Assume that we extend the MultiXact infrastructure so that it can track
whether each member o
Tom Lane wrote:
> > At one point I was thinking "combo". but "composite" sounds good.
>
> I like "combo" --- nice and short.
>
> >> Another issue that we need to think about before we go too far with this
> >> is the problem that we punted on before 8.2 release: how to deal with
> >> rolling back
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> This starts to look awfully similar to MultiXactIds. And probably using
> such a mechanism would allow you to "rollback" any number of row locks:
> take the current membersoof the "multicid", substract the one that
> rolled back and use that as new multicid. The main diff
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Another issue that we need to think about before we go too far with this
> > is the problem that we punted on before 8.2 release: how to deal with
> > rolling back an upgrade of a row-level lock from shared to exclusive
> > within a subtransaction. I
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Packed doesn't seem to have quite the right connotation either --- it
>> sounds like it means there are two separable fields in the CID value.
>>
>> Maybe "composite cid"?
> At one point I was thinking "combo". but "composite" sounds
Tom Lane wrote:
> [ time to move this thread to -hackers ]
>
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > BTW, I don't care much for the terminology "phantom cid" ... t
[ time to move this thread to -hackers ]
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, I don't care much for the terminology "phantom cid" ... there's
> nothing particularl
15 matches
Mail list logo
