| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: tablecmds.c and lock hierarchy |
| Date: | 2015-08-04 06:41:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTYUYwY00XOrH5r+ingC6dBkGt3-DLz5N3KqDJVbtOZGg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Please provide the link to the discussion of this. I don't see a problem
> here right now that can't be solved by saying
Particularly those messages:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150731022857.GC11473@alap3.anarazel.de
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150731200012.GC2441@postgresql.org
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqSK-hSZG7T1tAJ_=HEYsi6P1ejgX2x5LW3LYXJ7=9cOiQ@mail.gmail.com
> Assert(locklevel==ShareUpdateExclusiveLock ||
> locklevel>ShareRowExclusiveLock);
Yep, true as things stand now. But this would get broken if we add a
new lock level between ShareRowExclusiveLock and AccessExclusiveLock
that does not respect the current monotone hierarchy between those.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-08-04 07:18:22 | Re: FSM versus GIN pending list bloat |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-08-04 06:39:39 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |