| From: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Strange locking choices in pg_shdepend.c |
| Date: | 2008-01-23 16:49:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20080123164931.GL37748@decibel.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 04:54:06PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's probably not a good idea to have shdepReassignOwned() take only
> AccessShareLock on pg_shdepend. Even though the function itself
> merely reads the table, it is going to call functions that will take
> RowExclusiveLock, meaning that we're setting ourselves up for potential
> deadlock failures due to lock-upgrade. It'd be safer (and faster too)
> to just hold RowExclusiveLock through the whole operation.
Just a thought...
Would it be worthwhile to allow for logging when a lock gets upgraded?
That would make it easier to protect against deadlocks...
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2008-01-23 17:19:38 | Re: [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2008-01-23 16:48:49 | Re: Thick indexes - a look at count(1) query |