Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>
> >
> > if we already have some lock with priority X and new requested
> > lock has priority Y, Y <= X, then lock must be granted.
> >
> > Also, I would get rid of lockReadPriority stuff...
> >
>
> I found a problem to get rid of lockReadPriority stuff completely.
> If there's a table which is insert/update/deleted very frequenly by
> several processes,processes which request the high priority lock
> (such as vacuum) could hardly acquire the lock for the table.
I didn't mean to get rid of code checking waiter locks completely.
I just said that condition below
if (!lockReadPriority)
is unuseful any more.
Read my prev letter when, imo, we have to take waiters into
account.
Vadim
