On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> > Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wro=
te:
>> >> > Was this fixed?
>> >>
>> >> Not yet. ?I can probably fix it, if nobody else wants to do it.
>> >
>> > Well, it has languished for five months, so the "nobody else wants" pa=
rt
>> > is probably accurate. ?;-)
>>
>> OK. =A0Do we want to back-patch this, and if so how far? =A0On the one
>> hand, the symptom that OP is experiencing clearly sucks for him, but
>> on the other hand upgrading the strength of a lock in releases that
>> have been out in the field for a long time seems like an open
>> invitation to have the villagers show up with pitchforks. =A0Then again,
>> ShareUpdateExclusiveLock doesn't interfere with routine queries, so
>> maybe it's no big deal. =A0Given that we have only one report, I'm
>> inclined to just fix it in the master branch, but I could easily be
>> talked into the other approach if someone wants to make an argument
>> for it.
>
> Agree on master-only.
Done.
--=20
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company