| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 'Robert Haas' <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 'Josh Berkus' <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, 'Tom Lane' <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 'Magnus Hagander' <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, 'Christopher Browne' <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, 'PostgreSQL-development' <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL |
| Date: | 2012-11-08 15:18:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20121108151807.GC7225@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Kapila escribió:
> On Thursday, November 08, 2012 8:07 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >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 yes, it's sane to make the second backend wait until the first one
commits.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2012-11-08 15:22:29 | Re: Proof of concept: auto updatable views [Review of Patch] |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2012-11-08 15:01:29 | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL |