On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 05:44:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The reason why not is that the code that's meant to detect that is
> just fundamentally inadequate. It's examining individual LOCALLOCK
> entries to detect conflicts, but we keep separate LOCALLOCK entries
> for different lockmodes on the same object. So pg_advisory_lock()
> creates an entry with lockmode ExclusiveLock, while
> pg_advisory_xact_lock_shared() creates a different entry with lockmode
> AccessShareLock. But they are pointing at the same PROCLOCK, and the
> restriction we're dealing with here applies at the PROCLOCK level.
For the archives: this has been applied as of 6310809.
--
Michael
