| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Heikki Linnakangas'" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "'Jeff Janes'" <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "'pgsql-hackers'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Resource Owner reassign Locks |
| Date: | 2012-06-19 06:02:50 |
| Message-ID: | 001b01cd4de1$28eb9300$7ac2b900$@kapila@huawei.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> And it doesn't seem right for ResourceOwnerRemember/ForgetLock to have to
accept a NULL owner.
I am not sure, if it can ever enter into this flow without resowner as
mentioned in jeff comments
for session level locks. If it cannot enter then it is okay.
> Please take a look to see if I broke something.
In you previous mail you agreed with level as ERROR for elog message in
function ResourceOwnerForgetLock(..) function,
but in your modification you have used PANIC, is there any specific reason
for it.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-19 06:03:04 | Re: [PATCH 10/16] Introduce the concept that wal has a 'origin' node |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-19 05:56:33 | Re: Transactions over pathological TCP connections |