Re: Good name for new lock type for VACUUM?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Good name for new lock type for VACUUM?
Date: 2001-06-23 15:51:42
Message-ID: 7776.993311502@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Isn't it a better idea to have a separate 'SELF EXCLUSIVE' lock
> which conflicts with only itself ?

*Only* itself? What would that be useful for? Not for locking
tables, anyway --- if you don't conflict with AccessExclusiveLock
then it's possible for someone to drop the table while you're
working on it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-06-23 15:53:03 Re: Setuid functions
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-06-23 15:48:20 Re: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions