From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks |
Date: | 2011-02-01 14:00:03 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTikk-Nz_euUi3X1gH5MyuAdJsehp=kG_E1ZDqCRS@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 17:12, Marko Tiikkaja
> <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> wrote:
>> I still didn't address
>> the issue with pg_advisory_unlock_all() releasing transaction scoped locks,
>
> I guess you don't want independent locks, right? If an user object
> is locked by session locks, it also blocks backends trying to lock it
> with transaction locks.
>
> If so, I think an ideal behavior is below:
> - The transaction-or-session property is overwritten by the last lock
> function call. We can promote session locks from/to transaction locks.
No. The lock manager already supports session-locks. This patch
should be worried about making sure that LockAcquire() gets called
with the flags the user wants, NOT with redefining the interaction
between transaction locks and session locks.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-01 14:03:27 | Re: [pgsql-general 2011-1-21:] Are there any projects interested in object functionality? (+ rule bases) |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-02-01 12:30:00 | Re: setlocale and gettext in Postgres |