Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoY_3JXfh7_x7u+DkhE4Hb459XdsUbrMsFdS7YAbZDuY5A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 24 January 2014 08:33, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 24 January 2014 07:08, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:57 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>> v15 to fix the above problem.
>>>
>> v16 attached
>
> v17 attached
>
> This version adds a GUC called ddl_exclusive_locks which allows us to
> keep the 9.3 behaviour if we wish it. Some people may be surprised
> that their programs don't wait in the same places they used to. We
> hope that is a positive and useful behaviour, but it may not always be
> so.
>
> I'll commit this on Thurs 30 Jan unless I hear objections.

I haven't reviewed the patch, but -1 for adding a GUC.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Failure while inserting parent tuple to B-tree is not fun
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe