| From: | Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Developers List <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions |
| Date: | 1999-12-01 10:49:47 |
| Message-ID: | 3844FD4B.6086683B@krs.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>
> > >
> > > If there's no objection,I would change UnlockRelation() to not release
> > > the specified lock except AccessShareLock.
> >
> > Why don't remove this call from improper places?
> > I would try to find all calls and understand why
> > they made...
> >
>
> I was surprized that few people really want DDL commands inside transactions.
> Are there any reasons to releasing lock before end of transaction except
> that long term lock for system tuples is not preferable ?
>
> I think that UnlockRelation() is unnecessary fundamentally.
> Mine is the simplest way to achieve this.
> If there's no problem,I am glad to remove UnlockRelation() calls.
There are! I finally found where I used UnlockRelation() -
in execUtils.c:ExecCloseIndices(). Please read comments in
ExecOpenIndices() where LockRelation() is called...
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 1999-12-01 12:24:29 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 1999-12-01 10:37:18 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jose soares | 1999-12-01 10:53:15 | TRANSACTION "WARNINGS" |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SEV | 1999-12-01 10:47:49 | AW: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions |