Added to TODO.detail lock file.
> On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > [Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > > I was looking at this
> > >
> > > * Allow LOCK TABLE tab1, tab2, tab3 so all tables locked in unison
> > >
> > > but I'm not sure if my solution is really what was wanted, because it
> > > doesn't actually guarantee an all-or-nothing lock, it just locks each
> > > table in order. Thus it's more like a syntax simplification and reduces
> > > overhead.
> > >
> > 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.
> > Does this make sense? It did to me.
> Guys, have a look at:
> It's a way to do locking with deadlock detection, and without loosing
> your place in line for locks, very nifty imo.
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2000-06-02 23:48:33|
|Subject: Re: Industrial-Strength Logging|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2000-06-01 18:02:08|
|Subject: Re: non-blocking patches.|