From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Let's invent a function to report lock-wait-blocking PIDs |
Date: | 2013-03-25 19:51:18 |
Message-ID: | 20130325195118.GE17029@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:03:21AM +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> pg_is_lock_exclusive(lock, lock) returns boolean
> >> pg_is_lock_exclusive(lock[], lock[]) returns boolean
> >
> >> I suppose that the lock type would be text ('ExclusiveLock'), but we
> >> could also expose a new ENUM type for that (pg_lock_mode).
> >
> > I don't have an objection to providing such a function, but it doesn't
> > do anything for the problem beyond allowing getting rid of the hairy
> > case expression. That's a good thing to do of course --- but what about
> > the indirect-blockage issue?
>
> It's too late for my brain to build the full answer, the idea is that we
> have another way to build the dependency cycles in the pg_locks query
> and then we can aggregate locks at each level and see about conflicts
> once we accumulated the data.
>
> Is that even possible? E_GOTOSLEEP.
Should this be a TODO?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-03-25 20:44:43 | Re: Limiting setting of hint bits by read-only queries; vacuum_delay |
Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2013-03-25 19:40:12 | Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL) |