| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, Szymon Guz <mabewlun(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks |
| Date: | 2010-12-14 00:50:21 |
| Message-ID: | 4D06BF4D.3000200@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/13/2010 07:35 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Same lock space is good. Easy to separate if required.
>
> Explicitly nameable lock spaces would be even better, since if multiple
> applications use them you get strange and unmanageable contention.
Yeah. I have a table of lock names for different locks, and do stuff like:
perform pg_advisory_lock(l.lockid, some_value)
from my_advisory_locks l
where l.lockname = 'my_lock_name';
I don't know that we need a separately nameable lockspace for
transaction-scoped locks, though, do we?
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2010-12-14 00:51:05 | Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-14 00:47:39 | Re: Sync Replication with transaction-controlled durability |