From: | Oleksii Kliukin <alexk(at)hintbits(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: upgrades in row-level locks can deadlock |
Date: | 2019-06-14 07:52:18 |
Message-ID: | 98185931-A8A3-4CAB-B2A1-6FDAA536EA36@hintbits.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2019-Jun-13, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> On 2019-Jun-13, Oleksii Kliukin wrote:
>>
>>> Makes sense. For the symmetry I have included those that perform lock
>>> upgrades in one session and those that doesn’t, while the other sessions
>>> acquire locks, do updates or deletes. For those that don’t upgrade locks the
>>> test checks that the locks are acquired in the correct order.
>>
>> Thanks for the updated patch! I'm about to push to branches 9.6-master.
>> It applies semi-cleanly (only pgindent-maturity whitespace conflicts).
>
> Done, thanks for the report and patch!
>
> I tried hard to find a scenario that this patch breaks, but couldn't
> find anything.
Thank you very much for reviewing and committing it!
Cheers,
Oleksii
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2019-06-14 08:40:53 | Re: Converting NOT IN to anti-joins during planning |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2019-06-14 07:19:49 | Re: Index Skip Scan |