From: | "Vadim Mikheev" <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Philip Warner" <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, "Alex Pilosov" <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: relation ### modified while in use |
Date: | 2000-10-24 05:44:26 |
Message-ID: | 002d01c03d7d$78bafaa0$bc7a30d0@sectorbase.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > In my understanding,locking levels you provided contains
> > > an implicit share/exclusive lock on the corrsponding
> > > pg_class tuple i.e. AccessExclusive Lock acquires an
> > > exclusive lock on the corresping pg_class tuple and
> > > other locks acquire a share lock, Is it right ?
> >
> > No. Access...Locks are acquired over target table
> > (table' oid is used as key for lmgr hash table),
> > not over corresponding pg_class tuple, in what case
> > we would use pg_clas' oid + table' oid as key
> > (possibility I've described below).
> >
>
> Yes,I know that "lock table" doesn't touch the correpon
> ding pg_class tuple at all. However isn't it equivalent ?
From what POV?
Lock manager will allow two simultaneous exclusive locks using these
different methods (keys) and so we can interpret (use) them differently.
Vadim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Mount | 2000-10-24 08:00:25 | RE: JDBC now needs updates for large objects |
Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-10-24 03:33:53 | Re: Mailing list archives available? |