| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why is lock not released? |
| Date: | 2005-08-20 04:23:38 |
| Message-ID: | 10661.1124511818@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
>> The "drop" way probably allows slightly more concurrency, but given that
>> people should seldom be taking exclusionary locks on system catalogs,
>> I'm not sure this is really an issue.
> Hmm. The problem at hand (REASSIGN OWNED BY) may involve changing
> ownership of several objects in a single transaction. The order is
> unspecified, because it's following a scan of the pg_shdepend entries --
> so it'd be easy for one REASSIGN OWNED BY transaction to deadlock with
> another one, if they happen to follow different orderings.
Uh, how is it going to deadlock on a lock that is not exclusive?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-08-20 06:20:09 | VACUUM/t_ctid bug (was Re: GiST concurrency commited) |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-08-20 04:20:01 | Re: Why is lock not released? |