| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Rinehart <danielr(at)neophi(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Additional Notes |
| Date: | 2023-11-16 17:05:02 |
| Message-ID: | 405270.1700154302@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Daniel Rinehart <danielr(at)neophi(dot)com> writes:
> Our callout use of NOTIFY within a TRIGGER may be tangential to the root
> cause. What we wanted to call out is that neither the NOTIFY page or the
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/explicit-locking.html page mention that
> NOTIFY uses an AccessExclusiveLock.
Like Laurenz, I don't see this as being tremendously important.
The lock does not conflict with any user-acquirable lock, and
since it's not a lock on a relation it doesn't wind up getting
propagated to standby servers. We only use it as a handy way
to serialize commit of transactions that are writing the NOTIFY
queue. If it were a lesser but still exclusive lock type,
it wouldn't make any difference.
explicit-locking.html is really only about locks on tables.
Maybe that should be clarified somewhere?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-11-17 21:48:23 | Re: Missing documentation for FETCH FIRST in chapter 7.6 |
| Previous Message | Daniel Rinehart | 2023-11-16 14:35:15 | Re: Additional Notes |