| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 席冲(宜穆) <xichong(dot)xc(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Lock conflict |
| Date: | 2023-03-20 02:12:23 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvpMiNpFeGDrRjozHXFke3VQj0qU41k-_P=8LOxAsSREFw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 at 14:58, 席冲(宜穆) <xichong(dot)xc(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com> wrote:
> I think lock requested only check for conflict with already-held lock, if there is no conflict, the lock should be granted.
That would mean that stronger locks such as AEL might never be granted
if there was never any moment when no other conflicting locks existed
(which is very likely to happen on busy OLTP-type workloads). The way
it works now makes it fair so that weaker locks don't jump the queue.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-03-20 02:13:07 | Re: Allow logical replication to copy tables in binary format |
| Previous Message | 席冲 (宜穆) | 2023-03-20 01:58:01 | Lock conflict |