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
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
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
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
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
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
[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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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
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
[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
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
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
20 matches
Mail list logo