From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: tablecmds.c and lock hierarchy |
Date: | 2015-08-04 17:23:20 |
Message-ID: | 20150804172320.GS2441@postgresql.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > Maybe the solution to this is to add the concept of "addition" of two
> > lock modes, where the result is another lock mode that conflicts with
> > any lock that would conflict with either of the two operand lock modes.
> That's commutative, as this is basically looking at the conflict table
> to get the union of the bits to indicate what are all the locks
> conflicting with lock A and lock B, and then we select the lock on the
> table that includes the whole union, with a minimum number of them.
Yes.
> Now, let's take for example this case with locks A, B, C, D:
> - Lock A conflicts with ACD
> - B with BCD
> - C with itself
> - D with itself
> What would you choose as a result of add(C,D)? A or B? Or the super
> lock conflicting with all of them?
This appears to me an hypothetical case that I don't think occurs in our
conflicts table, so I wouldn't worry about it.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-08-04 17:24:06 | Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-08-04 17:20:55 | Re: track_commit_timestamp and COMMIT PREPARED |