| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Lock conflict behavior? |
| Date: | 2008-12-22 13:12:18 |
| Message-ID: | 6798.1229951538@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> I'm wondering if following behavior of PostgreSQL regarding lock
> conflict is an expected one. Here's a scenario:
> Session A:
> BEGIN;
> SELECT * FROM pg_class limit 1; -- acquires access share lock
> Session B:
> BEGIN;
> ALTER TABLE pg_class ....; -- waits for acquiring access
> exclusive lock(wil fail anyway though)
> Session C:
> SELECT * FROM pg_class...; -- whatever query which needs
> to acces pg_class will be
> blocked, too bad...
> I understand that B should wait for aquiring lock, but Should C wait
> for?
If we didn't do this, then a would-be acquirer of exclusive lock would
have a very serious problem with lock starvation: it might wait forever
in the face of a continuous stream of access-share lock requests.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bernd Helmle | 2008-12-22 13:53:19 | Re: WIP: Automatic view update rules |
| Previous Message | Andrew Gierth | 2008-12-22 12:21:01 | Re: a small proposal for avoiding foot-shooting |