| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Doubt about AccessExclusiveLock in ALTER TABLE .. SET ( .. ); |
| Date: | 2015-08-05 12:31:41 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYy-AJ5-9sfb36-FFQ3tyTUnV7iDbpGPtuS873nttsySg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> That opens up for lock escalation and deadlocks, doesn't it? You are
> probably thinking that it's okay to ignore those but I don't necessarily
> agree with that.
Agreed. I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill here. As
long as the locks that are actually used are monotonic, just use > and
stick a comment in there explaining that it could need adjustment if
we use other lock levels in the future. I presume all the lock-levels
used for DDL are, and will always be, self-exclusive, so why all this
hand-wringing?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2015-08-05 13:04:07 | Re: WIP: Make timestamptz_out less slow. |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2015-08-05 12:30:53 | Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention |