On 12 April 2016 at 14:11, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 12 April 2016 at 13:53, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> >> wrote: >> > On 8 April 2016 at 17:49, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> With the patch, you can - if you wish - substitute >> >> some other number for the one the planner comes up with. >> > >> > I saw you're using AccessExclusiveLock, the reason being it affects >> > SELECTs. >> > >> > That is supposed to apply when things might change the answer from a >> > SELECT, >> > whereas this affects only the default for a plan. >> > >> > Can I change this to a lower setting? I would have done this before >> > applying >> > the patch, but you beat me to it. >> >> I don't have a problem with reducing the lock level there, if we're >> convinced that it's safe. > > > I'll run up a patch, with appropriate comments.
Attached -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
reduce_lock_levels_incl_comments.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
