Re: Debugging deadlocks

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Debugging deadlocks
Date: 2005-04-02 16:27:26
Message-ID: 87ll81rvo1.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers


Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> > Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> I looked at Paul's first message and thought "nah, that won't work
> >> because ... because ... hmm ... hmmm ..."
>
> > For what it's worth, this would be very similar to how Oracle handles such
> > locks.
>
> [ slightly alarmed ] Do they have a patent on the way they do it?

Do we really want to know?...

A few minutes searching on a patent search site doesn't turn up anything
relevant though. It might have been part of Oracle's design from such an early
stage that they never thought it was patentable. It's not clear to me that it
is for that matter. The general idea of storing locks with the objects being
locked isn't really anything novel.

--
greg

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2005-04-02 16:51:19 Re: [GENERAL] plPHP in core?
Previous Message Dave Cramer 2005-04-02 16:00:22 Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-04-02 16:44:39 Re: invalidating cached plans
Previous Message Dave Cramer 2005-04-02 16:00:22 Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core?