On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar jul 06 22:31:40 -0400 2010: >> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> Obviously not. We don't need to acquire an AccessExclusiveLock to >> >> comment on an object - just something that will CONFLICT WITH an >> >> AccessExclusiveLock. So, use the same locking rules, perhaps, but >> >> take a much weaker lock, like AccessShareLock. >> > >> > Well, it probably needs to be a self-conflicting lock type, so that >> > two COMMENTs on the same object can't run concurrently. But I agree >> > AccessExclusiveLock is too strong: that implies locking out read-only >> > examination of the object, which we don't want. >> >> Hmm... so, maybe ShareUpdateExclusiveLock? > > So COMMENT ON will conflict with (auto)vacuum? Seems a bit weird ...
Well, I'm open to suggestions... I doubt we want to create a new lock level just for this. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
