| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager |
| Date: | 2020-03-07 15:23:39 |
| Message-ID: | 7492.1583594619@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I think instead of the flag we need to keep the counter because we can
> acquire the same relation extension lock multiple times.
Uh ... what? How would that not be broken usage on its face?
I continue to think that we'd be better off getting all of this
out of the heavyweight lock manager. There is no reason why we
should need deadlock detection, or multiple holds of the same
lock, or pretty much anything that LWLocks don't give you.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-03-07 15:34:39 | Re: Re[6]: bool_plperl transform |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-03-07 15:08:07 | Re: backend type in log_line_prefix? |