Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> There are numerous problems with the code as it stands at this point.
> It crashes if you try to use 2PC, which means the regression tests
> fail; it probably does horrible things if you run out of shared
> memory; pg_locks knows nothing about the new mechanism (arguably, we
> could leave it that way: only locks that can't possibly be conflicting
> with anything can be taken using this mechanism, but it would be nice
> to fix, I think); and there are likely some other gotchas as well.
> Still, the basic mechanism appears to work.
>
> The code is attached, for anyone who may be curious.  Known idiocies
> are marked with "ZZZ".  The design was discussed on the previous
> thread ("reducing the overhead of frequent table locks"), q.v.  There
> are some comments in the patch as well, but more is likely needed.

Updated patch attached. This one passes the regression tests, and all
known bugs are fixed. There are still a few debugging leftovers in
the patch, and probably a few other rough edges, but I think this is
now ready for serious review.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company