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 9722.1510241921@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> No, that's not right.  Now that you mention it, I realize that tuple
> locks can definitely cause deadlocks.  Example:

Yeah.  Foreign-key-related tuple locks are another rich source of
examples.

> ... So I don't
> think we can remove speculative insertion locks from the deadlock
> detector either.

That scares me too.  I think that relation extension can safely
be transferred to some lower-level mechanism, because what has to
be done while holding the lock is circumscribed and below the level
of database operations (which might need other locks).  These other
ideas seem a lot riskier.

(But see recent conversation where I discouraged Alvaro from holding
extension locks across BRIN summarization activity.  We'll need to look
and make sure that nobody else has had creative ideas like that.)
        regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Pg V10: Patch for bug in bonjour support