| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
| Date: | 2010-09-06 20:11:23 |
| Message-ID: | 22180.1283803883@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 21:45 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
>> The locks held by a transaction are released after
>> RecordTransactionCommit(), and waiting for the sync ack
>> happens in this function. Now what happens when a sync
>> transaction hold a lock that an async one is waiting for?
> It seems your glass in half-empty. Mine is half-full.
Simon, you really are failing to advance the conversation. You claim
that we can have sync plus async transactions without a performance hit,
but you have failed to explain how, at least in any way that anyone
else understands. Pontificating about how that will be so much better
than not having it doesn't address the problem that others are having
with seeing how to implement it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2010-09-06 20:23:57 | Re: git: uh-oh |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-09-06 20:11:03 | Re: 9.1alpha1 bundled -- please verify |