Lock conflict behavior?
От
Tatsuo Ishii
Тема
Lock conflict behavior?
Дата
Msg-id
20081222.171409.88492553.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Lock conflict behavior? Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>
Re: Lock conflict behavior? Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Re: Lock conflict behavior? Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>
Re: Lock conflict behavior? Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>
Re: Lock conflict behavior? Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Lock conflict behavior? Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Re: Lock conflict behavior? Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Re: Lock conflict behavior? Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Re: Lock conflict behavior? Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Re: Lock conflict behavior? Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Lock conflict behavior? Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Re: Lock conflict behavior? Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Lock conflict behavior? Jan Urbański <j.urbanski@students.mimuw.edu.pl>
Hi, I'm wondering if following behavior of PostgreSQL regarding lock conflict is an expected one. Here's a scenario: Session A:BEGIN;SELECT * FROM pg_class limit 1; -- acquires access share lock Session B:BEGIN;ALTER TABLE pg_class ....; -- waits for acquiring access exclusive lock(wil fail anyway though) Session C:SELECT * FROM pg_class...; -- whatever query which needs to acces pg_class will be blocked, too bad... I understand that B should wait for aquiring lock, but Should C wait for? Also, it seems that an attacker could do a denial service attack if he could open session A and B, since other users on session C or following sessions will be blocked. -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления