Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager
| От | Amit Kapila |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAA4eK1LQXzofmao0GfrpNY6=wS67kCd=1SiqSmWX+5Nb9nt00g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: >>> ... I'd like to propose to change relation >>> extension lock management so that it works using LWLock instead. > >> That's not a good idea because it'll make the code that executes while >> holding that lock noninterruptible. > > Is that really a problem? We typically only hold it over one kernel call, > which ought to be noninterruptible anyway. > During parallel bulk load operations, I think we hold it over multiple kernel calls. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: