Re: Lock conflict - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: Lock conflict
Date
Msg-id CAApHDvpMiNpFeGDrRjozHXFke3VQj0qU41k-_P=8LOxAsSREFw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Lock conflict  ("席冲(宜穆)" <xichong.xc@alibaba-inc.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 at 14:58, 席冲(宜穆) <xichong.xc@alibaba-inc.com> wrote:
> I think lock requested only check for conflict with already-held lock, if there is no conflict, the lock should be
granted.

That would mean that stronger locks such as AEL might never be granted
if there was never any moment when no other conflicting locks existed
(which is very likely to happen on busy OLTP-type workloads).  The way
it works now makes it fair so that weaker locks don't jump the queue.

David



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "席冲(宜穆)"
Date:
Subject: Lock conflict
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Allow logical replication to copy tables in binary format