Re: FATAL: lock AccessShareLock on object 0/1260/0 is already held

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: FATAL: lock AccessShareLock on object 0/1260/0 is already held
Date: 2011-09-07 23:16:12
Message-ID: 8206.1315437372@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 06:25:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... But maybe it'd be interesting for Dave to stick a
>> LockReleaseAll call into ProcKill() and see if that makes things better.
>> (Dave: test that before you put it in production, I'm not totally sure
>> it's safe.)

> Re safety, what is the worst case here?

I think a failure would be pretty obvious --- if it gets through
regression tests it's probably fine.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-09-07 23:39:15 Re: FATAL: lock AccessShareLock on object 0/1260/0 is already held
Previous Message daveg 2011-09-07 23:05:21 Re: FATAL: lock AccessShareLock on object 0/1260/0 is already held