2010/7/9 KaiGai Kohei :
> (2010/07/07 11:31), Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Robert Haas writes:
Obviously not. We don't need to acquire an AccessExclusiveLock to
comment on an object - just something that will CONFLICT WITH an
AccessExc
(2010/07/07 11:31), Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas 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 l
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar jul 06 22:31:40 -0400 2010:
>>> Hmm... so, maybe ShareUpdateExclusiveLock?
>>
>> So COMMENT ON will conflict with (auto)vacuum? Seems a bit weird ...
> Well, I'm open to
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera
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 wrote:
>> > Robert Haas writes:
>> >> Obviously not. We don't need to acquire an AccessExclusiveLock to
>> >> comment on a
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 wrote:
> > Robert Haas writes:
> >> Obviously not. We don't need to acquire an AccessExclusiveLock to
> >> comment on an object - just something that will CONFLICT WITH an
> >> Acce
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas 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 wea
Robert Haas 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
2010/7/6 KaiGai Kohei :
> (2010/07/06 23:33), Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> 2010/7/6 KaiGai Kohei:
In the following scenario, we can see orphan comments.
>>
>>> Yeah. I think the reason we haven't seen any complaints about this
>>> before is that the worst-case scenario is that
(2010/07/06 23:33), Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> 2010/7/6 KaiGai Kohei:
>>> In the following scenario, we can see orphan comments.
>
>> Yeah. I think the reason we haven't seen any complaints about this
>> before is that the worst-case scenario is that a comment for a dropped
>> data
Robert Haas writes:
> 2010/7/6 KaiGai Kohei :
>> In the following scenario, we can see orphan comments.
> Yeah. I think the reason we haven't seen any complaints about this
> before is that the worst-case scenario is that a comment for a dropped
> database object eventually becomes associated wi
2010/7/6 KaiGai Kohei :
> In the following scenario, we can see orphan comments.
Yeah. I think the reason we haven't seen any complaints about this
before is that the worst-case scenario is that a comment for a dropped
database object eventually becomes associated with a new database
object. But
In the following scenario, we can see orphan comments.
session.1 session.2
----
1: CREATE TYPE my_typ
AS (a int, b text);
2: BEGIN;
3: COMMENT ON TYPE my_typ
IS 'testt
12 matches
Mail list logo
