Re: [HACKERS] proposals for LLL, part 1

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> You are correct.  We need to lock Proc stuctures during our scan, but we
> don't need to keep the list in shared memory.  No reason to do it.  Do
> we have to keep the Proc's locked while we get our table data locks.  I
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No! Only while we are scanning Procs...

> sure hope not.  Not sure how we are going prevent someone from
> committing their transaction between our Proc scan and when we start our
> transaction.  Not even sure if I should be worried about that.

We shouldn't... It doesn't matter.

Vadim