| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Advisory locks seem rather broken |
| Date: | 2012-05-03 18:19:42 |
| Message-ID: | 201205032019.42680.andres@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday, May 03, 2012 06:12:04 PM Simon Riggs wrote:
> AFAICS you'd either use transactional or session level, but to use
> both seems bizarre. And if you really did need both, you can put a
> wrapper around the function to check whether a session level exists
> before you grant the transaction level lock, or vice versa.
I don't think at all that this is crazy. For queues it very well might make
sense for a dequeuing side to hold a lock in a session mode while the putting
side uses normal transaction scope (because its done inside a trigger or
such).
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-03 18:25:51 | Re: "unexpected EOF" messages |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-03 17:48:13 | Re: "unexpected EOF" messages |