
> BTW, what are your plans for state saving/reversion for the lock manager
> and buffer manager?  The lock state, in particular, makes these other
> problems look trivial by comparison.

Why can't we keep all locks until main tx end ? Locks are not self conflicting
are they ? So the only reason to free them would be to improve concurrency,
and imho we don't need that. I guess I am just not seeing this correctly.
(I am assuming that a deadlock will still break the whole tx)

Andreas

Fri, 14 May 2004 13:00:21 +0200
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Re: relcache refcount
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at> writes:
> Why can't we keep all locks until main tx end ?

For committed subtransactions we have to do that, yes, but for aborted
subtransactions we must release.  Otherwise you can't implement a retry
loop around a potentially-deadlocking operation.

> (I am assuming that a deadlock will still break the whole tx)

Wrong.  We might as well not bother with the entire project.

			regards, tom lane

Fri, 14 May 2004 08:02:58 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: relcache refcount 