| From: | Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Michael Simms <grim(at)argh(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum analyze bug CAUGHT |
| Date: | 1999-09-13 18:30:33 |
| Message-ID: | 37DD42C9.B360721B@krs.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Also, rather than running around and adding locks to every single
> place that calls heap_open or heap_close, I wonder whether we shouldn't
> have heap_open/heap_close themselves automatically grab or release
> at least a minimal lock (AccessShareLock, I suppose).
This could result in deadlocks...
> Or maybe better: change heap_open/heap_openr/heap_close to take an
> additional parameter specifying the kind of lock to grab. That'd still
> mean having to visit all the call sites, but it would force people to
> think about the issue in future rather than forgetting to lock a table
> they're accessing.
This way is better.
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-09-13 18:52:54 | Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum analyze bug CAUGHT |
| Previous Message | Vadim Mikheev | 1999-09-13 18:22:40 | Re: [HACKERS] Fixing Simms' vacuum problems |