From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Why is lock not released? |
Date: | 2005-08-20 09:47:47 |
Message-ID: | 20050820094747.GA20131@surnet.cl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 12:23:38AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> >> The "drop" way probably allows slightly more concurrency, but given that
> >> people should seldom be taking exclusionary locks on system catalogs,
> >> I'm not sure this is really an issue.
>
> > Hmm. The problem at hand (REASSIGN OWNED BY) may involve changing
> > ownership of several objects in a single transaction. The order is
> > unspecified, because it's following a scan of the pg_shdepend entries --
> > so it'd be easy for one REASSIGN OWNED BY transaction to deadlock with
> > another one, if they happen to follow different orderings.
>
> Uh, how is it going to deadlock on a lock that is not exclusive?
Oh, so is RowExclusiveLock not exclusive? (pokes) yeah, I guess it
isn't ...
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>)
"La grandeza es una experiencia transitoria. Nunca es consistente.
Depende en gran parte de la imaginación humana creadora de mitos"
(Irulan)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-08-20 14:25:58 | Re: VACUUM/t_ctid bug (was Re: GiST concurrency commited) |
Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2005-08-20 07:54:05 | Re: VACUUM/t_ctid bug (was Re: GiST concurrency commited) |