Re: Doubt about AccessExclusiveLock in ALTER TABLE .. SET ( .. );
| От | Robert Haas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Doubt about AccessExclusiveLock in ALTER TABLE .. SET ( .. ); |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+TgmoYy-AJ5-9sfb36-FFQ3tyTUnV7iDbpGPtuS873nttsySg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Doubt about AccessExclusiveLock in ALTER TABLE .. SET ( .. ); (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Doubt about AccessExclusiveLock in ALTER TABLE .. SET (
.. );
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > That opens up for lock escalation and deadlocks, doesn't it? You are > probably thinking that it's okay to ignore those but I don't necessarily > agree with that. Agreed. I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill here. As long as the locks that are actually used are monotonic, just use > and stick a comment in there explaining that it could need adjustment if we use other lock levels in the future. I presume all the lock-levels used for DDL are, and will always be, self-exclusive, so why all this hand-wringing? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: