From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Massimo Dal Zotto <dz(at)cs(dot)unitn(dot)it> |
Cc: | Pablo Funes <pablo(at)cs(dot)brandeis(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL Hackers <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] nonblocking lock? |
Date: | 1999-06-02 15:33:23 |
Message-ID: | 199906021533.LAA22273@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Is it possible to do a nonblocking lock? That is,
> > I want several clients to execute,
> >
> > begin
> > if table A is locked
> > then
> > go around doing stuff on other tables
> > else
> > lock A and do stuff on A
> > endif
> >
> > the problem is, if I use normal lock, then
> > after one client has locked and is doing stuff on A
> > the other one will block and thus it won't be able
> > to go around doing stuff on other tables. Is it
> > possible to do a nonblocking lock that will just
> > fail if the table is locked already?
>
> Try with user locks. You can find the code in contrib/userlocks.
Yes, this is the proper PostgreSQL solution.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dmitry Samersoff | 1999-06-02 15:52:43 | Re: [HACKERS] PID of backend |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-06-02 15:31:40 | Re: [HACKERS] 6.4.2/AIX: syslog support seems alright ? |