| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: tablecmds.c and lock hierarchy |
| Date: | 2015-08-05 00:21:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRUWp09gC-oaxaXZLR3U0VRXn06WbhwKa03sieLkdZyqQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Now, let's take for example this case with locks A, B, C, D:
>> - Lock A conflicts with ACD
>> - B with BCD
>> - C with itself
>> - D with itself
>> What would you choose as a result of add(C,D)? A or B? Or the super
>> lock conflicting with all of them?
Actually the answer is the sum of all the potential candidates. This
converges to AccessExclusiveLock.
> This appears to me an hypothetical case that I don't think occurs in our
> conflicts table, so I wouldn't worry about it.
No it doesn't. I am using a huge hypothetical "if" here :)
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-08-05 00:24:56 | Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in joinrels.c |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-08-04 23:34:39 | pgsql: Fix pg_dump to dump shell types. |