On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 11:19 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > As to solutions, it cannot be acceptable to ignore some locks just
> > because an xid has not been assigned.
>
> Even if GetRunningTransactionLocks ignores such a lock, it's eventually
> WAL-logged by LogAccessExclusiveLock, isn't it?
If it were true always, I would much prefer your solution.
Assuming that would then cause a race condition between the logging of
the RunningXactsData and the lock, which wouldn't move us forwards.
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services