On Thursday, November 08, 2012 8:07 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Amit Kapila escribió:
> > 3. Two backends trying to write to .auto file
> > we can use ".auto.lock" as the the lock by trying to create it
> > exclusive mode as the first step
> > of the command. If it already exists then backend needs to
> So changing .auto settings would be nontransactional?
No, it should behave the way you explained below.
The points mentioned in above mail are just to explain the basic concept.
>The other way to
> define this would be to have a lock that you grab and keep until end of
> transaction, and the .auto.lock file is deleted if the transaction is
> aborted; so have the .auto.lock -> .auto rename only happen at
> transaction commit.
Is this behavior sane for Transaction block, as in transaction block some
other backend might need to wait
for little longer, if both issued a command to change config parameter?
IMO it is okay, as the usage of command to change config parameters inside a
transaction block would be less.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2012-11-08 15:18:07|
|Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be
changed via SQL|
|Previous:||From: Atri Sharma||Date: 2012-11-08 14:53:11|
|Subject: Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables|