Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Mithun Cy <mithun.cy@enterprisedb.com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2018-03-30T07:43:35Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Allow page lock to conflict among parallel group members.
- 3ba59ccc896e 13.0 landed
Allow relation extension lock to conflict among parallel group members.
- 85f6b49c2c53 13.0 landed
Add assert to ensure that page locks don't participate in deadlock cycle.
- 72e78d831ab5 13.0 landed
Assert that we don't acquire a heavyweight lock on another object after
- 15ef6ff4b985 13.0 landed
Fix unsafe usage of strerror(errno) within ereport().
- 81256cd05f07 11.0 cited

On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 04:01:28PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> If you have a clever idea how to make this work with as few atomic
> operations as the current patch uses while at the same time reducing
> the possibility of contention, I'm all ears.  But I don't see how to
> do that.

This thread has no activity since the beginning of the commit fest, and
it seems that it would be hard to reach something committable for v11,
so I am marking it as returned with feedback.
--
Michael