| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "<Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Dan Ports" <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock |
| Date: | 2011-06-03 22:21:23 |
| Message-ID: | 4DE91813020000250003E14C@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Tuple locks should be safe from that because we use the tuple xmin
> as part of the target key, but page and heap locks
That should have read "page and relation locks".
> I guess that tips the scales in favor of it being worth the extra
> code. I think it's still in that gray area
I just thought of something which takes it out of the gray area for
me: pg_locks. Even though it would be extremely rare for a false
positive to actually occur if we let this go, people would be sure
to get confused by seeing locks on the dropped objects in the
pg_locks view.. They've got to be cleaned up.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Chernow | 2011-06-03 22:22:06 | Re: Error in PQsetvalue |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-06-03 21:54:17 | Re: Error in PQsetvalue |