On Thursday, November 08, 2012 8:07 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Amit Kapila escribió: > > > 3. Two backends trying to write to .auto file > > we can use ".auto.lock" as the the lock by trying to create it > in > > exclusive mode as the first step > > of the command. If it already exists then backend needs to > wait. > > So changing .auto settings would be nontransactional?
No, it should behave the way you explained below. The points mentioned in above mail are just to explain the basic concept. >The other way to > define this would be to have a lock that you grab and keep until end of > transaction, and the .auto.lock file is deleted if the transaction is > aborted; so have the .auto.lock -> .auto rename only happen at > transaction commit. Is this behavior sane for Transaction block, as in transaction block some other backend might need to wait for little longer, if both issued a command to change config parameter? IMO it is okay, as the usage of command to change config parameters inside a transaction block would be less. With Regards, Amit Kapila. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
