Re: [PATCHES] Lazy xid assignment V4

2007-09-05 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Florian G. Pflug wrote: 1) 2PC was broken in V3. I added code that skips LOCKTYPE_VIRTUALTRANSACTION locks when writing the locks to the 2PC state file, but I didn't add the same exception to the code that reassigns the locks to a dummy PGROC afterwards. So the locks weren't released at

Re: [PATCHES] Lazy xid assignment V4

2007-09-05 Thread Florian G. Pflug
Tom Lane wrote: Florian G. Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here is an updated patch, following the discussion. The patch can be found at: http://soc.phlo.org/lazyxidassign.v4.patch I've been working through this, and found a couple items that seem like judgment calls: * Is there a good

Re: [PATCHES] Lazy xid assignment V4

2007-09-05 Thread Florian G. Pflug
Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Florian G. Pflug wrote: 1) 2PC was broken in V3. I added code that skips LOCKTYPE_VIRTUALTRANSACTION locks when writing the locks to the 2PC state file, but I didn't add the same exception to the code that reassigns the locks to a dummy PGROC afterwards. So the locks

Re: [PATCHES] Lazy xid assignment V4

2007-09-05 Thread Tom Lane
Florian G. Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However, none of these are very strong reasons - certainly weaker than doing what ensures to cause the least confusion. I'm therefore starting to think that we should remove transaction, and keep the name virtualtransaction for the VXID. That will

Re: [PATCHES] Lazy xid assignment V4

2007-09-05 Thread Tom Lane
Florian G. Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here is an updated patch, following the discussion. The patch can be found at: http://soc.phlo.org/lazyxidassign.v4.patch (I seems I still can't get attachments through to this list) Applied with revisions --- mostly cosmetic, but there were a couple

Re: [PATCHES] Lazy xid assignment V4

2007-09-05 Thread Florian G. Pflug
Tom Lane wrote: Florian G. Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here is an updated patch, following the discussion. The patch can be found at: http://soc.phlo.org/lazyxidassign.v4.patch (I seems I still can't get attachments through to this list) Applied with revisions --- mostly cosmetic, but

Re: [PATCHES] Lazy xid assignment V4

2007-09-05 Thread Chris Browne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Florian G. Pflug) writes: Chris Browne wrote: Similarly, does it seem likely that Slony-I users would need to worry about this? No.. it should have zero negative effects for Slony-I. In fact, it will be an advantage in some cases I think. I remember something about

Re: [PATCHES] Lazy xid assignment V4

2007-09-05 Thread Robert Treat
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 12:56, Tom Lane wrote: Florian G. Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However, none of these are very strong reasons - certainly weaker than doing what ensures to cause the least confusion. I'm therefore starting to think that we should remove transaction, and

Re: [PATCHES] Lazy xid assignment V4

2007-09-05 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ISTM that by removing the transaction column, there is no way to see the XID for relations thats have been updated (which by definition will have locks on them). Am I mis-reading the docs, or have we lost that functionality? Huh? What do you mean

Re: [PATCHES] Lazy xid assignment V4

2007-09-05 Thread Florian G. Pflug
Robert Treat wrote: On Wednesday 05 September 2007 12:56, Tom Lane wrote: Florian G. Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However, none of these are very strong reasons - certainly weaker than doing what ensures to cause the least confusion. I'm therefore starting to think that we should remove

Re: [PATCHES] Lazy xid assignment V4

2007-09-05 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Florian G. Pflug wrote: So, in essence, you get the old pg_locks format back by doing select l1.*, l2.transactionid as transaction from pg_locks l1, pg_locks l2 where l1.vxid = l2.vxid and l2.locktype = 'transaction' and l2.mode='exclusive' and l2.granted=true. Hm.. Maybe we should put

Re: [PATCHES] Lazy xid assignment V4

2007-09-05 Thread Florian G. Pflug
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Florian G. Pflug wrote: So, in essence, you get the old pg_locks format back by doing select l1.*, l2.transactionid as transaction from pg_locks l1, pg_locks l2 where l1.vxid = l2.vxid and l2.locktype = 'transaction' and l2.mode='exclusive' and l2.granted=true.

Re: [PATCHES] Lazy xid assignment V4

2007-09-05 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Florian G. Pflug wrote: So, in essence, you get the old pg_locks format back by doing select l1.*, l2.transactionid as transaction from pg_locks l1, pg_locks l2 where l1.vxid = l2.vxid and l2.locktype = 'transaction' and l2.mode='exclusive' and

[PATCHES] Lazy xid assignment V4

2007-09-04 Thread Florian G. Pflug
Hi Here is an updated patch, following the discussion. The patch can be found at: http://soc.phlo.org/lazyxidassign.v4.patch (I seems I still can't get attachments through to this list) Most changes are just small fixes and tweaks. Those are .) Introduced %v for log_line_prefix .) I missed a

Re: [PATCHES] Lazy xid assignment V4

2007-09-04 Thread Pavan Deolasee
On 9/4/07, Florian G. Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Here is an updated patch, following the discussion. The patch can be found at: http://soc.phlo.org/lazyxidassign.v4.patch (I seems I still can't get attachments through to this list) I haven't been able to follow the discussions here,

Re: [PATCHES] Lazy xid assignment V4

2007-09-04 Thread Tom Lane
Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 9/4/07, Florian G. Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is an updated patch, following the discussion. The patch can be found at: http://soc.phlo.org/lazyxidassign.v4.patch (I seems I still can't get attachments through to this list) I haven't been

Re: [PATCHES] Lazy xid assignment V4

2007-09-04 Thread Florian G. Pflug
Pavan Deolasee wrote: On 9/4/07, Florian G. Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Here is an updated patch, following the discussion. The patch can be found at: http://soc.phlo.org/lazyxidassign.v4.patch (I seems I still can't get attachments through to this list) I haven't been able to follow

Re: [PATCHES] Lazy xid assignment V4

2007-09-04 Thread Chris Browne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Florian G. Pflug) writes: Pavan Deolasee wrote: On 9/4/07, Florian G. Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Here is an updated patch, following the discussion. The patch can be found at: http://soc.phlo.org/lazyxidassign.v4.patch (I seems I still can't get attachments through

Re: [PATCHES] Lazy xid assignment V4

2007-09-04 Thread Florian G. Pflug
Chris Browne wrote: Similarly, does it seem likely that Slony-I users would need to worry about this? No.. it should have zero negative effects for Slony-I. In fact, it will be an advantage in some cases I think. I remember something about troubles with Slony-I if the in-use xids on a

Re: [PATCHES] Lazy xid assignment V4

2007-09-04 Thread Tom Lane
Florian G. Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here is an updated patch, following the discussion. The patch can be found at: http://soc.phlo.org/lazyxidassign.v4.patch I've been working through this, and found a couple items that seem like judgment calls: * Is there a good reason for formatting