Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Date: 2014-01-27 20:35:58
Message-ID: CAM3SWZS7ziMoNnSZxLQk=RR955WYUiO7GtG3tKaX5AqYwHk3rQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I haven't reviewed the patch, but -1 for adding a GUC.

I'm pretty surprised that it's been suggested that some people might
prefer AccessExclusiveLocks. Why would anyone prefer that?

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-01-27 20:38:03 pgsql: Keep pg_stat_statements' query texts in a file, not in shared me
Previous Message Robert Haas 2014-01-27 20:25:22 Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe