Hi,
On 2019-07-24 17:14:39 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:24 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > but we really don't need to do any of that in this case - the only
> > locker is the current backend, after all.
> >
> > I think this isn't great, because it'll later will cause unnecessary
> > hint bit writes (although ones somewhat likely combined with setting
> > XMIN_COMMITTED), and even extra work for freezing.
> >
> > Based on a quick look this wasn't the case before the finer grained
> > tuple locking - which makes sense, there was no cases where locks would
> > need to be carried forward.
>
> I agree that this is unfortunate. Are you planning on working on it?
Not at the moment, no. Are you planning / hoping to take a stab at it?
Greetings,
Andres Freund