Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Debugging deadlocks

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Debugging deadlocks
Date: 2005-04-02 16:27:26
Message-ID: 87ll81rvo1.fsf@stark.xeocode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> > Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> I looked at Paul's first message and thought "nah, that won't work
> >> because ... because ... hmm ... hmmm ..."
> 
> > For what it's worth, this would be very similar to how Oracle handles such
> > locks.
> 
> [ slightly alarmed ]  Do they have a patent on the way they do it?

Do we really want to know?...

A few minutes searching on a patent search site doesn't turn up anything
relevant though. It might have been part of Oracle's design from such an early
stage that they never thought it was patentable. It's not clear to me that it
is for that matter. The general idea of storing locks with the objects being
locked isn't really anything novel.

-- 
greg


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-04-02 16:44:39
Subject: Re: invalidating cached plans
Previous:From: Dave CramerDate: 2005-04-02 16:00:22
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core?

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2005-04-02 16:51:19
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] plPHP in core?
Previous:From: Dave CramerDate: 2005-04-02 16:00:22
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group