| From: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: relation ### modified while in use |
| Date: | 2000-10-23 15:39:13 |
| Message-ID: | 3.0.5.32.20001024013913.032642b0@mail.rhyme.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 15:29 23/10/00 +0900, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>
>If we have a mechanism to acquire a share lock on a tuple,we
>could use it for managing system info generally. However the
>only allowed lock on a tuple is exclusive. Access(Share/Exclusive)
>Lock on tables would give us a restricted solution about pg_class
>tuples.
>
Don't we have this ability? What about taking a RowShare lock on the
pg_class tuple whenever you read from the table; then requiring schema
updates take a RowExclusive lock on the pg_class tuple?
As you say, it won't prevent deadlocks, but it seems like a reasonable
thing to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-23 15:44:44 | Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: relation ### modified while in use |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-23 15:37:53 | Re: relation ### modified while in use |