Re: tablecmds.c and lock hierarchy - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Please provide the link to the discussion of this. I don't see a problem
> here right now that can't be solved by saying

Thread:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFcNs+oX7jVENC_3i54fDQ3ibmOGmknc2tMevdSmvojbSXGbGg@mail.gmail.com

Particularly those messages:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150731022857.GC11473@alap3.anarazel.de
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150731200012.GC2441@postgresql.org
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqSK-hSZG7T1tAJ_=HEYsi6P1ejgX2x5LW3LYXJ7=9cOiQ@mail.gmail.com

> Assert(locklevel==ShareUpdateExclusiveLock ||
> locklevel>ShareRowExclusiveLock);

Yep, true as things stand now. But this would get broken if we add a
new lock level between ShareRowExclusiveLock and AccessExclusiveLock
that does not respect the current monotone hierarchy between those.
-- 
Michael