| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
| Cc: | Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Lock compatibility matrix |
| Date: | 2007-01-31 22:01:13 |
| Message-ID: | 6976.1170280873@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> writes:
> Besides formatting improvements, it has addtional lock with
> temporary name UPDATE EXCLUSIVE (UE), which is the same as
> EXCLUSIVE, but doesn't conflicts with SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE (SUE),
> which aquired by VACUUM and autovacuum. The reason for this is that
> at present we have no lock mode, which doesn't conflicts with *vacuum.
> The problem was described in thread
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-12/msg01476.php
> What is the reason why we don't have such lock ?
I don't think the case was made that we need one. There was certainly
nothing in that thread that I found convincing. My opinion is we have
too many lock modes already ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | korryd | 2007-01-31 22:05:04 | Re: [GENERAL] 8.2.1 Compiling Error |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-31 22:00:02 | Re: "May", "can", "might" |