Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP)
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoaCuGY6ea2bT-QczjoGEeGsXy4-JxXsy0X3OHOaBZJK8Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP) (Rajeev rastogi <rajeev.rastogi@huawei.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP)
Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev.rastogi@huawei.com> wrote: >> > Deadlock Detection: >> I'm not sure how this would work out internally > In order to resolve deadlock, two member variable will be created in the structure PROLOCK: > Bitmask for lock types currently held by autonomous transaction. > LOCKMASK holdMaskByAutoTx[MAX_AUTO_TX_LEVEL] > Bitmask for lock types currently held by main transaction. > LOCKMASK holdMaskByNormalTx > > Now when we grant the lock to particular transaction, depending on type of transaction, bit > Mask will be set for either holdMaskByAutoTx or holdMaskByNormalTx. > Similar when lock is ungranted, corresponding bitmask will be reset. That sounds pretty ugly, not to mention the fact that it will cause a substantial increase in the amount of memory required to store PROCLOCKs. It will probably slow things down, too. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: