| From: | Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Graham <mgraham(at)bloxx(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum as "easily obtained" locks |
| Date: | 2011-08-03 14:32:58 |
| Message-ID: | CAL_0b1vF7PbgS+pUcE6-uZswbGJN83s890iPpYztbdkr-Qs4MQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 3 August 2011 18:17, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Would my applications
>> constant polling of the queue mean that the lock could not be easily
>> obtained?
>
> Very possible, depending on what duty cycle is involved there.
Is there any ways of guaranteed concurrent obtaining it?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
--
Sergey Konoplev
Blog: http://gray-hemp.blogspot.com /
Linkedin: http://ru.linkedin.com/in/grayhemp /
JID/GTalk: gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com / Skype: gray-hemp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Graham | 2011-08-03 14:35:02 | Re: Vacuum as "easily obtained" locks |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2011-08-03 14:22:01 | Re: Vacuum as "easily obtained" locks |