From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Lock |
Date: | 1999-12-20 00:18:29 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.9912190124040.356-100000@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1999-12-18, Bruce Momjian mentioned:
> > * Allow LOCK TABLE tab1, tab2, tab3 so all tables locked in unison
> It took a few minutes, but I remember the use for this. If you are
> going to hang waiting to lock tab3, you don't want to lock tab1 and tab2
> while you are waiting for tab3 lock. The user wanted all tables to lock
> in one operation without holding locks while waiting to complete all
> locking.
>
> Can you do the locks, and if one fails, not hang, but unlock the
> previous tables, go lock/hang on the failure, and go back and lock the
> others? Seems it would have to be some kind of lock/fail/unlock/wait
> loop.
That's what I suspected. But of course LockRelation() doesn't return
anything based on whether it succeeded, it just hangs, so it'll take a
little more work. Next year ...
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 1999-12-20 00:18:39 | Re: initdb.sh fixed |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-12-19 22:32:34 | Re: [HACKERS] "ExecInitIndexScan: both left and right..." meaning? |