On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 07:35:43AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 4 August 2015 at 05:56, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> > The thing is that, as mentioned by Alvaro and Andres on this thread,
>> > we have no guarantee that the different relation lo
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 07:35:43AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 4 August 2015 at 05:56, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > The thing is that, as mentioned by Alvaro and Andres on this thread,
> > we have no guarantee that the different relation locks compared have a
> > monotone hierarchy and we may fin
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:41 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> Yep, true as things stand now. But this would get broken if we add a
>> new lock level between ShareRowExclusiveLock and AccessExclusiveLock
>> that does not respect the current monoto
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Now, let's take for example this case with locks A, B, C, D:
>> - Lock A conflicts with ACD
>> - B with BCD
>> - C with itself
>> - D with itself
>> What would
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:41 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Yep, true as things stand now. But this would get broken if we add a
> new lock level between ShareRowExclusiveLock and AccessExclusiveLock
> that does not respect the current monotone hierarchy between those.
But we're probably not going t
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Maybe the solution to this is to add the concept of "addition" of two
> > lock modes, where the result is another lock mode that conflicts with
> > any lock that would conflict with either of the two operand loc
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Please provide the link to the discussion of this. I don't see a problem
> here right now that can't be solved by saying
Thread:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cafcns+ox7jvenc_3i54fdq3ibmogmknc2tmevdsmvojbsxg...@mail.gmail.com
Particular
On 4 August 2015 at 05:56, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As mentioned in the thread related to lowering locks of autovacuum
> reloptions in ALTER TABLE SET
> (
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cafcns+ox7jvenc_3i54fdq3ibmogmknc2tmevdsmvojbsxg...@mail.gmail.com
> ),
> I have noticed th
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> As mentioned in the thread related to lowering locks of autovacuum
>> reloptions in ALTER TABLE SET
>> (http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cafcns+ox7jvenc_3i54fdq3ibmogmknc2tmevdsmvojbsxg...@mail.gmail.com),
>> I
Michael Paquier wrote:
> As mentioned in the thread related to lowering locks of autovacuum
> reloptions in ALTER TABLE SET
> (http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cafcns+ox7jvenc_3i54fdq3ibmogmknc2tmevdsmvojbsxg...@mail.gmail.com),
> I have noticed the following code in
> AlterTableGetLockLevel@t
Hi all,
As mentioned in the thread related to lowering locks of autovacuum
reloptions in ALTER TABLE SET
(http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cafcns+ox7jvenc_3i54fdq3ibmogmknc2tmevdsmvojbsxg...@mail.gmail.com),
I have noticed the following code in
AlterTableGetLockLevel@tablecmds.c:
11 matches
Mail list logo
