From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Padgett <npadgett(at)redhat(dot)com>, "pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Liam Stewart <liams(at)redhat(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison" |
Date: | 2001-07-30 17:30:29 |
Message-ID: | 200107301730.f6UHUTJ11296@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > The unusual case here is that deadlock is not checked on request, but
> > only after waiting on the lock for a while. This is because deadlock
> > detection is an expensive operation.
>
> But that is what happens. If one of the locks is not obtained, the
> algorithm does wait on that lock (after releasing the other locks).
> In the case of a deadlock (tom's scenario #1) it would wait forever,
> but the deadlock detection will find it in there and break it.
OK, I thought you were talking about the LOCK a,b case, not the other
case where we had a previous LOCK statement. Sorry.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(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 | Bill Studenmund | 2001-07-30 17:37:16 | Re: SIGCHLD handler in Postgres C function. |
Previous Message | Fernando Nasser | 2001-07-30 17:24:26 | Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison" |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fernando Nasser | 2001-07-30 18:09:41 | Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison" |
Previous Message | Fernando Nasser | 2001-07-30 17:24:26 | Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison" |