Re: Doubt about AccessExclusiveLock in ALTER TABLE .. SET ( .. ); - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Doubt about AccessExclusiveLock in ALTER TABLE .. SET ( .. );
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqQyCT08NQtOrwiEZf5BsgytKrve9EkvMSn8y0_O39C0OQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Doubt about AccessExclusiveLock in ALTER TABLE .. SET ( .. );  (Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Doubt about AccessExclusiveLock in ALTER TABLE .. SET ( .. );  (Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Agreed.  I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill here.  As
>> long as the locks that are actually used are monotonic, just use > and
>> stick a comment in there explaining that it could need adjustment if
>> we use other lock levels in the future.  I presume all the lock-levels
>> used for DDL are, and will always be, self-exclusive, so why all this
>> hand-wringing?
>>
>
> New version attached with suggested changes.

Thanks!

+# SET autovacuum_* options needs a ShareUpdateExclusiveLock
+# so we mix reads with it to see what works or waits
s/needs/need/ and I think you mean mixing "writes", not "reads".

Those are minor things though, and from my point of view a committer
can look at it.
Regards,
--
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libpq: Allow specifying multiple host names to try to connect to
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.