| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2013-03-28 13:12:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwFti8x__Wa5Vf7dagDe29t0+FOzFK3=a2epuQ9O4BzOMw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2013-03-28 10:18:45 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Since we call relation_open() with lockmode, ISTM that we should also call
>> > relation_close() with the same lockmode instead of NoLock. No?
>> >
>> Agreed on that.
>
> That doesn't really hold true generally, its often sensible to hold the
> lock till the end of the transaction, which is what not specifying a
> lock at close implies.
You're right. Even if we release the lock there, the lock is taken again soon
and hold till the end of the transaction. There is no need to release the lock
there.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-03-28 13:47:05 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow external recovery_config_directory |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-03-28 12:45:28 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow external recovery_config_directory |