| From: | Will Mortensen <will(at)extrahop(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Marco Slot <marco(dot)slot(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, marco(at)citusdata(dot)com, Yvonne Chen <yvonne(at)extrahop(dot)com>, Jacob Speidel <jacob(at)extrahop(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Exposing the lock manager's WaitForLockers() to SQL |
| Date: | 2024-01-11 09:51:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAMpnoC7_K-urjEhEVZ7WvW5e_CAVcj9bxKGjip+DKQMg0gZA4A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Here is a new series adding a single pg_wait_for_lockers() function
that takes a boolean argument to control the interpretation of the
lock mode. It omits LOCK's handling of descendant tables so it
requires permissions directly on descendants in order to wait for
locks on them. Not sure if that would be a problem for anyone.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v6-0001-Refactor-GetLockConflicts-into-more-general-GetLo.patch | application/octet-stream | 8.1 KB |
| v6-0002-Allow-specifying-single-lockmode-in-WaitForLocker.patch | application/octet-stream | 8.4 KB |
| v6-0003-Add-pg_wait_for_lockers-function.patch | application/octet-stream | 31.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2024-01-11 10:00:00 | Re: Test slots invalidations in 035_standby_logical_decoding.pl only if dead rows are removed |
| Previous Message | shveta malik | 2024-01-11 09:42:38 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |