On 31 October 2014 19:36, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It's an obscure case and its not the only solution either. > > I don't think that's an obscure situation at all. Do you really think > a patch that could cause an attempt to VACUUM FULL a system catalog to > suffer an undetected deadlock meets this community's quality > standards? Because that's what we're talking about.
Nobody has said that allowing undetected deadlocks is acceptable, so your other comments are void. I've suggested *stricter* locking, which would obviously allow deadlock detection. You recognised that by claiming that the locking I had proposed was actually too strict, which is where the above example came from. Yes, I have proposed stricter locking, but as explained, the only things this would slow down are catalog VAC FULLs, which are already a problem. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
