| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 2PC-induced lockup |
| Date: | 2007-07-11 19:53:42 |
| Message-ID: | 916.1184183622@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> It's not? I agree with Tom here; this is just one of the numerous
>>> things you can do to screw up your database as a superuser. Why would
>>> you LOCK the pg_auth table, or any other system table for that
>>> matter, in the first place? Let alone in a distributed transaction.
>>
>> Well, my test case arose from a real application scenario, not an
>> attempt to destroy my database system.
> Why does the application LOCK pg_auth?
Even if there is a reason for a lock, surely it's not necessary to use
AccessExclusiveLock. A lesser lock would synchronize whatever the heck
it's doing without locking out readers.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-07-11 19:55:27 | Re: 2PC-induced lockup |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-07-11 19:12:11 | Re: 2PC-induced lockup |