Re: Doubt about AccessExclusiveLock in ALTER TABLE .. SET ( .. );

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Fixed. Thanks for your review.

Regards,

*** This work is funded by Zenvia Mobile Results (http://www.zenvia.com.br)

--
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