Re: BUG #9371: pg_dump acquiring ROW EXCLUSIVE locks on tables
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #9371: pg_dump acquiring ROW EXCLUSIVE locks on tables |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 30660.1394135244@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #9371: pg_dump acquiring ROW EXCLUSIVE locks on tables (Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> writes: > Here's a patch for HEAD along those lines. > I've tested it on our production data and confirmed that with this > patch pg_dump no longer acquires exclusive locks. I think this should > be back-patched, since we do promise that pg_dump does not block other > readers or writers. I think this patch looks generally sane, and I agree that the excess locking is a bug worthy of being back-patched. But is anyone concerned about changing the signature of AcquireRewriteLocks() in back branches? I can't immediately think of a reason why extensions might be calling it, but ... We could avoid a signature change in back branches by making AcquireRewriteLocks() into a wrapper around some new function. But I don't want to do it like that in HEAD, so this would create a divergence between HEAD and back branches. I'm inclined to think a signature change is OK. Objections? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: