Re: relation ### modified while in use

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?