Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion
Date: 2014-11-06 22:03:28
Message-ID: 545BF030.3060209@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/5/14, 8:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> rhaas=# create table foo (a int);
> CREATE TABLE
> rhaas=# select test_group_locking('1.0:start,2.0:start,1.0:lock:AccessExclusiveLock:foo,2.0:lock:AccessExclusiveLock:foo');
> NOTICE: starting worker 1.0
> NOTICE: starting worker 2.0
> NOTICE: instructing worker 1.0 to acquire AccessExclusiveLock on
> relation with OID 16387
> NOTICE: instructing worker 2.0 to acquire AccessExclusiveLock on
> relation with OID 16387

Damn that's cool to see! :)

FWIW, some creative use of a composite type, plpgsql and string_to_array() would have saved a bunch of parsing code... it's surprisingly easy to parse stuff like this using string_to_array().
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2014-11-06 22:08:12 Re: Tweaking Foreign Keys for larger tables
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2014-11-06 21:54:14 Re: BRIN indexes - TRAP: BadArgument