| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: logical decoding - GetOldestXmin |
| Date: | 2012-12-16 16:44:04 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMK=Es8kZLP-oHEfzrRLQmxjz6k66tGaFDSzcub4_TNASQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 13 December 2012 20:03, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Does anybody have an opinion on the attached patches? Especially 0001,
> which contains the procarray changes?
>
> It moves a computation of the sort of:
>
> result -= vacuum_defer_cleanup_age;
> if (!TransactionIdIsNormal(result))
> result = FirstNormalTransactionId;
>
> inside ProcArrayLock. But I can't really imagine that to be relevant...
I don't see why this is hard.
Just make the lock acquisition/release conditional on another parameter.
That way the only thing you'll be moving inside the lock is an if test
on a constant boolean.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-12-16 17:02:35 | Re: logical decoding - GetOldestXmin |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-12-16 16:40:53 | Re: Set visibility map bit after HOT prune |