From: | Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2015-08-05 18:06:43 |
Message-ID: | CAFcNs+ofZa3w4RVMK1jh8MzWh3P3ag6obJVKrP0kTCGcMpgNdw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
> > That opens up for lock escalation and deadlocks, doesn't it? You are
> > probably thinking that it's okay to ignore those but I don't necessarily
> > agree with that.
>
> 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.
Regards,
--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
>> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br
>> Blog: http://fabriziomello.github.io
>> Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello
>> Github: http://github.com/fabriziomello
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
alter-table-set-reduce-lock-level-for-autovac-reloptions_v7.patch | text/x-diff | 22.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-08-05 18:09:03 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-08-05 17:59:42 | Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6 |