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

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Date
Msg-id CA+U5nMK0wac4kNDWNvB0et4OR38r+yhbO1ceCiEKyDUpa8iUWQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Responses Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 27 January 2014 20:35, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I haven't reviewed the patch, but -1 for adding a GUC.
>
> I'm pretty surprised that it's been suggested that some people might
> prefer AccessExclusiveLocks. Why would anyone prefer that?

Nobody has said "prefer". I said...

> 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.

We get the new behaviour by default and I expect we'll be very happy with it.

A second thought is that if we have problems of some kind in the field
as a result of the new lock modes then we will be able to turn them
off. I'm happy to fix any problems that occur, but that doesn't mean
there won't be any. If everybody is confident that we've foreseen
every bug, then no problem, lets remove it. I recall being asked to
add hot_standby = on | off for similar reasons.

-- Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: new json funcs
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: new json funcs