Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> If we want a global view of the who-blocks-whom situation, I think we'll
>> need another approach. But since this way solves isolationtester's
>> problem fairly neatly, I was hopeful that it would be useful for other
>> apps too.
> What about a function
> pg_is_lock_exclusive(lock, lock) returns boolean
> pg_is_lock_exclusive(lock[], lock[]) returns boolean
> I suppose that the lock type would be text ('ExclusiveLock'), but we
> could also expose a new ENUM type for that (pg_lock_mode).
I don't have an objection to providing such a function, but it doesn't
do anything for the problem beyond allowing getting rid of the hairy
case expression. That's a good thing to do of course --- but what about
the indirect-blockage issue?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
