| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Doubt about AccessExclusiveLock in ALTER TABLE .. SET ( .. ); |
| Date: | 2015-08-06 00:21:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQyCT08NQtOrwiEZf5BsgytKrve9EkvMSn8y0_O39C0OQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Agreed. I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill here. As
>> long as the locks that are actually used are monotonic, just use > and
>> stick a comment in there explaining that it could need adjustment if
>> we use other lock levels in the future. I presume all the lock-levels
>> used for DDL are, and will always be, self-exclusive, so why all this
>> hand-wringing?
>>
>
> New version attached with suggested changes.
Thanks!
+# SET autovacuum_* options needs a ShareUpdateExclusiveLock
+# so we mix reads with it to see what works or waits
s/needs/need/ and I think you mean mixing "writes", not "reads".
Those are minor things though, and from my point of view a committer
can look at it.
Regards,
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-08-06 00:27:53 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-08-06 00:15:09 | Re: [PATCH] libpq: Allow specifying multiple host names to try to connect to |