Re: Lock compatibility matrix

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Lock compatibility matrix
Date: 2007-01-31 22:01:13
Message-ID: 6976.1170280873@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> writes:
> Besides formatting improvements, it has addtional lock with
> temporary name UPDATE EXCLUSIVE (UE), which is the same as
> EXCLUSIVE, but doesn't conflicts with SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE (SUE),
> which aquired by VACUUM and autovacuum. The reason for this is that
> at present we have no lock mode, which doesn't conflicts with *vacuum.
> The problem was described in thread
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-12/msg01476.php
> What is the reason why we don't have such lock ?

I don't think the case was made that we need one. There was certainly
nothing in that thread that I found convincing. My opinion is we have
too many lock modes already ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message korryd 2007-01-31 22:05:04 Re: [GENERAL] 8.2.1 Compiling Error
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2007-01-31 22:00:02 Re: "May", "can", "might"