Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> 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?
It's too late for my brain to build the full answer, the idea is that we
have another way to build the dependency cycles in the pg_locks query
and then we can aggregate locks at each level and see about conflicts
once we accumulated the data.
Is that even possible? E_GOTOSLEEP.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
