Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager
Date
Msg-id 7492.1583594619@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> writes:
> I think instead of the flag we need to keep the counter because we can
> acquire the same relation extension lock multiple times.

Uh ... what?  How would that not be broken usage on its face?

I continue to think that we'd be better off getting all of this
out of the heavyweight lock manager.  There is no reason why we
should need deadlock detection, or multiple holds of the same
lock, or pretty much anything that LWLocks don't give you.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: backend type in log_line_prefix?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Re[6]: bool_plperl transform