| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: LOCK DATABASE |
| Date: | 2011-05-19 17:50:29 |
| Message-ID: | 23651.1305827429@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of jue may 19 13:34:13 -0400 2011:
>> I can't see getting rid of that lock, since we'd simply have to invent
>> some other interlock for new connections vs. DROP DATABASE. However,
>> I do think that we might sometime need to convert it to a session lock
>> that's held for the life of the backend. If this feature can't cope
>> with that, that'd be a potential problem.
> The following things acquire a lock on database:
> ALTER DATABASE SET
> ALTER DATABASE OWNER
> COMMENT ON DATABASE
> So as far as features that would cause a problem if we ever decide to
> take a lock on database for the duration of the whole session, this
> isn't the first one. We'd have to invent a fix for those other things
> anyway.
Only if all the locks involved are exclusive ... which is not what
I was suggesting, and not what they are now IIRC.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2011-05-19 17:53:59 | Re: Patch by request at pgcon |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2011-05-19 17:49:33 | Re: Patch by request at pgcon |