On Dec17, 2010, at 16:49 , Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 15.12.2010 16:20, Florian Pflug wrote:
>> On Dec14, 2010, at 15:01 , Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Florian Pflug<fgp@phlo.org> wrote:
>>>>> - serializable lock consistency - I am fairly certain this needs
>>>>> rebasing. I don't have time to deal with it right away. That sucks,
>>>>> because I think this is a really important change.
>>>> I can try to find some time to update the patch if it suffers from bit-rot. Would that help?
>>>
>>> Yes!
>>
>> I've rebased the patch to the current HEAD, and re-run my FK concurrency test suite,
>> available from https://github.com/fgp/fk_concurrency, to verify that things still work.
>>
>> I've also asserts to the callers of heap_{update,delete,lock_tuple} to verify (and document)
>> that update_xmax may only be InvalidTransactionId if a lockcheck_snapshot is passed to
>> heap_{update,delete,lock_tuple}.
>>
>> Finally, I've improved the explanation in src/backend/executor/README of how row locks and
>> REPEATABLE READ transactions interact, and tried to state the guarantees provided by
>> FOR SHARE and FOR UPDATE locks more precisely.
>>
>> I've published my work to https://github.com/fgp/postgres/tree/serializable_lock_consistency,
>> and attached an updated patch. I'd be happy to give write access to that GIT repository
>> to anyone who wants to help getting this committed.
>
> Here's some typo & style fixes for that, also available at git://git.postgresql.org/git/users/heikki/postgres.git.
Thanks! FYI, I've pulled these into https://github.com/fgp/postgres/tree/serializable_lock_consistency
best regards,
Florian Pflug