From: | Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: table_open/table_close with different lock mode |
Date: | 2023-07-21 06:38:34 |
Message-ID: | CAEG8a3+f5E53qMygjxcke+Cd934K486oH_c+jCA2=0mYYHwh4g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 2:26 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 02:05:56PM +0800, Junwang Zhao wrote:
> > I noticed there are some places calling table_open with
> > RowExclusiveLock but table_close with NoLock, like in function
> > toast_save_datum.
> >
> > Can anybody explain the underlying logic, thanks in advance.
>
> This rings a bell. This is a wanted behavior, see commit f99870d and
> its related thread:
> https://postgr.es/m/17268-d2fb426e0895abd4@postgresql.org
>
I see this patch, so all the locks held by a transaction will be released
at the commit phase, right? Can you show me where the logic is located?
> The tests added by this commit in src/test/isolation/ will show the
> difference in terms of the way the toast values get handled with and
> without the change.
> --
> Michael
--
Regards
Junwang Zhao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2023-07-21 06:51:57 | Re: Support worker_spi to execute the function dynamically. |
Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2023-07-21 06:37:48 | Re: MERGE ... RETURNING |