| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_locks "at-a-glance" view |
| Date: | 2008-06-19 16:11:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20080619161143.GX5077@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Decibel! escribió:
> Yeah, if you look at the code, locks are defined as numbers and I
> believe there's a very simple patter of what conflicts; a higher lock
> number conflicts with all those that are lower. So, it might be a lot
> cleaner to have a function that defines numbers for all the lock modes
> and just test to see if one lock is higher than another.
This is not always the case.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brijesh Shrivastav | 2008-06-19 16:17:03 | Error compiling postgresql UDT in visual studio 2008 |
| Previous Message | Decibel! | 2008-06-19 16:02:32 | Re: pg_locks "at-a-glance" view |