On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2014-11-20 at 11:22 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> 2. Propagate pre-existing locks from the user backend to all the workers. >> >> I initially proposed #1, but now I think #2 solves more of the >> problems for less code. > > OK. The primary concern with that is unintended consequences. But it's > reasonable for you to ask for something more concrete. I will think on > this more. > > A few things I'm thinking about now: > > * What do you mean by "pre-existing"? Locks existing prior to what > event? (I don't think that's exactly what you meant.) > * What's the conceptual difference between granting locks that would > otherwise conflict with another process in the group (which is what this > proposal is about) and having exactly the same set of locks? Is there > any? > * Let's say you have processes A1 and A2 in one group, and B. A1 and B > both have an AccessShare lock, and A2 tries to acquire an exclusive > lock. B is waiting on A2. That's still a deadlock, right?
I think I discussed all of these issues on the other thread already. Am I wrong? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
