On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 19:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes: > > I was also worried about holding multiple LWLocks at once -- is such > > practice generally avoided in the rest of the code? > > It's allowed but remember that there is no deadlock detection in lwlock.c. > You must be very certain that there is only one possible order in which > such locks could be taken. Interactions with heavyweight locks would be > bad news as well.
That was my worry initially. > On the whole it might be better if a heavyweight lock were used, > such that it'll automatically clean up after commit. (I'm still > wondering if we couldn't do without the lock altogether though.) Yes, I think there's a better way as well. I'll look into it. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers