Re: Exposing the lock manager's WaitForLockers() to SQL

From: Will Mortensen <will(at)extrahop(dot)com>
To: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Marco Slot <marco(dot)slot(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, marco(at)citusdata(dot)com, Yvonne Chen <yvonne(at)extrahop(dot)com>, Jacob Speidel <jacob(at)extrahop(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Exposing the lock manager's WaitForLockers() to SQL
Date: 2024-01-29 04:06:03
Message-ID: CAMpnoC5yryhhaYO=tJbqRO4LdrbHGWgLJ6iLDK8udCOdKce7RQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I guess the output of the deadlock test was unstable, so I simply
removed it in v8 here, but I can try to fix it instead if it seems
important to test that.

Attachment Content-Type Size
v8-0001-Refactor-GetLockConflicts-into-more-general-GetLo.patch application/octet-stream 10.6 KB
v8-0003-Add-pg_wait_for_lockers-function.patch application/octet-stream 29.4 KB
v8-0002-Allow-specifying-single-lockmode-in-WaitForLocker.patch application/octet-stream 8.2 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message vignesh C 2024-01-29 04:40:16 Re: Documentation to upgrade logical replication cluster
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2024-01-29 04:05:44 Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby