From: | Blessy Thomas <blessy456bthomas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Regarding experiencing |
Date: | 2025-02-11 11:12:52 |
Message-ID: | CAJyyjtBOjgUHmavCbzodgtXGSuPXmw7Ee40cDUTbAutBBWix9Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Thank you for the clarification. Now this explains the scenario.
Regards
Blessy Thomas
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 at 15:56, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
wrote:
> On 2025-Feb-11, Blessy Thomas wrote:
>
> > These are the commands I have run in the terminal
> > psql (17.0)
> > Type "help" for help.
> >
> > postgres=# SELECT pg_advisory_lock_shared(1001); //initialising the
> shared
> > lock
> > pg_advisory_lock_shared
> > -------------------------
> >
> > (1 row)
> >
> > postgres=# SELECT pg_advisory_lock(1001); //exclusive lock
> > pg_advisory_lock
> > ------------------
> >
> > (1 row)
>
> Ah yes, there's no conflict in this case because the holder of both
> locks is the same session. You'd have to request the exclusive lock in
> another psql session and you should see it block.
>
> --
> Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer —
> https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | PG Doc comments form | 2025-02-11 14:00:10 | Second paragraph a little bit misleading |
Previous Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2025-02-11 10:25:57 | Re: Regarding experiencing |