On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> Obviously not. We don't need to acquire an AccessExclusiveLock to >> comment on an object - just something that will CONFLICT WITH an >> AccessExclusiveLock. So, use the same locking rules, perhaps, but >> take a much weaker lock, like AccessShareLock. > > Well, it probably needs to be a self-conflicting lock type, so that > two COMMENTs on the same object can't run concurrently. But I agree > AccessExclusiveLock is too strong: that implies locking out read-only > examination of the object, which we don't want.
Hmm... so, maybe ShareUpdateExclusiveLock? That looks to be the weakest thing that is self-conflicting. The others are ShareRowExclusiveLock, ExclusiveLock, and AccessExclusiveLock. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
