Re: Reducing some DDL Locks to ShareLock

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Reducing some DDL Locks to ShareLock
Date: 2008-11-12 02:57:06
Message-ID: 22229.1226458626@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 19:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The reason I was thinking about heap_lock_tuple is that it might provide
>> a suitable defense against that case.

> OK. Lock tuple works OK, but its the unlock that I'm worried about. How
> would non-transactional un-lock tuple work?

I was imagining that the heap_inplace_update operation would release the
lock. Is there some problem with the concept?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Philip Warner 2008-11-12 03:08:45 Re: Meaning of transaction pg_locks?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-11-12 02:53:03 Re: Meaning of transaction pg_locks?