| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "<Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu> |
| Subject: | Re: SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock |
| Date: | 2011-06-04 16:20:52 |
| Message-ID: | 4DEA5B64.1030600@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04.06.2011 19:19, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> On 03.06.2011 21:04, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> Also, if anyone has comments or hints about the placement of those
>>> calls, I'd be happy to receive them.
>
>> heap_drop_with_catalog() schedules the relation for deletion at the end
>> of transaction, but it's still possible that the transaction aborts and
>> the heap doesn't get dropped after all. If you put the
>> DropAllPredicateLocksFromTable() call there, and the transaction later
>> aborts, you've lost all the locks already.
>
> But on the third thought: is that wrong? Surely locks taken by an
> aborted transaction can be discarded.
These are predicate locks - there can be "locks" on the table belonging
to transactions that have already committed.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-04 16:30:09 | plperl fails with perl 5.14.0 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-04 16:19:04 | Re: SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock |