Re: Exclusive lock for database rename - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim C. Nasby
Subject Re: Exclusive lock for database rename
Date
Msg-id 20051104220213.GB9989@pervasive.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Exclusive lock for database rename  (Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews@supernews.com>)
Responses Re: Exclusive lock for database rename  (Jochem van Dieten <jochemd@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 07:40:15PM -0000, Andrew - Supernews wrote:
> On 2005-11-03, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> Someone wanted to rename a database while someone else was running a
> >> rather long pg_dump, so the rename had to wait, and everyone else had
> >> to wait for the rename because no new connections would be allowed.
> >
> > As an auxiliary issue, why do the new connections have to wait in this
> > case?  The rename waits for the AccessShareLock of the dump to be
> > released, but meanwhile new connections should be able to get
> > AccessShareLocks of their own.
> 
> No. New AccessShare locks block behind the pending AccessExclusive lock.
> Otherwise AccessShare locks could starve the exclusive lock forever.

I would argue that in cases like this (and 'this' means just about any
DDL, for starters) that it would be better not to block everyone until
work can actually be done. Or at least make that an option.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Crash during elog.c...
Next
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data