| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Advisory locks seem rather broken |
| Date: | 2012-05-03 16:12:09 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0ybpOfw8HCvHJtfjMrwYS3ZAk0PCvxUh9Zu_upA-AV0_Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I'm inclined to think that a saner implementation would involve
> splitting the userlock lockmethod into two, one transactional and one
> not. That gets rid of the when-to-release kluges, but instead we have
> to think of a way for two different lockmethods to share the same
> lock keyspace. If we don't split it then we definitely need to figure
> out someplace else to keep the transactionality flag.
hm, would that be exposed through the pg_locks view? some users might
be running queries like "select * from pg_locks where
locktype='advisory' and ..."
it's a minor point, but ideally if they share the same lockspace the
same locktype would be reported in the view.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-05-03 16:21:17 | Re: remove dead ports? |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-05-03 16:12:04 | Re: Advisory locks seem rather broken |