| From: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Blessy Thomas <blessy456bthomas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Regarding experiencing |
| Date: | 2025-02-11 10:25:57 |
| Message-ID: | 202502111025.yhnpf7xy4bqz@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On 2025-Feb-11, Blessy Thomas wrote:
> These are the commands I have run in the terminal
> psql (17.0)
> Type "help" for help.
>
> postgres=# SELECT pg_advisory_lock_shared(1001); //initialising the shared
> lock
> pg_advisory_lock_shared
> -------------------------
>
> (1 row)
>
> postgres=# SELECT pg_advisory_lock(1001); //exclusive lock
> pg_advisory_lock
> ------------------
>
> (1 row)
Ah yes, there's no conflict in this case because the holder of both
locks is the same session. You'd have to request the exclusive lock in
another psql session and you should see it block.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Blessy Thomas | 2025-02-11 11:12:52 | Re: Regarding experiencing |
| Previous Message | Blessy Thomas | 2025-02-11 09:39:16 | Re: Regarding experiencing |