2011/6/27 Robert Haas <[email protected]>:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Well, it seems I didn't put nearly enough thought into heap_update().
>>> The fix for the immediate problem looks simple enough - all the code
>>> has been refactored to use the new API, so the calls can be easily be
>>> moved into the critical section (see attached). But looking at this a
>>> little more, I see that heap_update() is many bricks short of a load,
>>> because there are several places where the buffer can be unlocked and
>>> relocked, and we don't recheck whether the page is all-visible after
>>> reacquiring the lock. So I've got some more work to do here.
>>
>> See what you think of the attached. I *think* this covers all bases.
>> It's a little more complicated than I would like, but I don't think
>> fatally so.
>
> For lack of comment, committed. It's hopefully at least better than
> what was there before, which was clearly several bricks short of a
> load.
out of curiosity, does it affect the previous benchmarks of the feature ?
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
--
Cédric Villemain 2ndQuadrant
http://2ndQuadrant.fr/ PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
