| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Doubt about AccessExclusiveLock in ALTER TABLE .. SET ( .. ); |
| Date: | 2015-08-04 17:15:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20150804171552.GQ2441@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-08-03 14:15:27 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > As long as this only applies on master, this may be fine... We could
> > basically pass a LOCKMASK to the multiple layers of tablecmds.c
> > instead of LOCKMODE to track all the locks that need to be taken, and
> > all the relations open during operations.
>
> This sounds far too complicated to me. Just LockRelationOid() the
> relation with the appropriate level everytime you pass through the
> function?
That opens up for lock escalation and deadlocks, doesn't it? You are
probably thinking that it's okay to ignore those but I don't necessarily
agree with that.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-08-04 17:16:52 | Re: track_commit_timestamp and COMMIT PREPARED |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-08-04 17:13:43 | Re: patch: prevent user from setting wal_buffers over 2GB bytes |