Re: LOCK DATABASE

Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of jue may 19 13:34:13 -0400 2011:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue may 19 10:18:20 -0400 2011:
> >> Second, it relies on the fact that a new connection briefly grabs a
> >> lock on the database that is then released.
> 
> > Yes.  This is well known and it's not going away.
> 
> >> If we happened (for whatever reason) to want to change that to a
> >> session lock, or get rid of it entirely, then this would break.
> 
> > That would break other things too, so I don't see it as a problem.
> 
> I can't see getting rid of that lock, since we'd simply have to invent
> some other interlock for new connections vs. DROP DATABASE.  However,
> I do think that we might sometime need to convert it to a session lock
> that's held for the life of the backend.  If this feature can't cope
> with that, that'd be a potential problem.

The following things acquire a lock on database:
ALTER DATABASE SETALTER DATABASE OWNERCOMMENT ON DATABASE

So as far as features that would cause a problem if we ever decide to
take a lock on database for the duration of the whole session, this
isn't the first one.  We'd have to invent a fix for those other things
anyway.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support