On 10-11-23 05:01 AM, Stuart Bishop wrote: > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Christopher Browne > <[email protected]> wrote: > The idea discussed on the mailing list is to have Slony take out an > advisory lock before attempting to lock tables and releasing that lock > afterwards. At the start of a transaction, my application would block > until that advisory lock is available. This way, Slony can actually be > granted locks on a busy system. Currently, in some situations Slony > will never be granted the locks because there is always at least one > transaction in progress reading the resources it is attempting to > lock. > > I imagine this behavior would only occur if the site has configured > which number to use as the lock. >
I've added this to the wiki page along with a link to the prior email discussion mentioning this. _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
