Re: Lock conflict behavior?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Lock conflict behavior? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6798.1229951538@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Lock conflict behavior? (Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Lock conflict behavior?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org> writes: > I'm wondering if following behavior of PostgreSQL regarding lock > conflict is an expected one. Here's a scenario: > Session A: > BEGIN; > SELECT * FROM pg_class limit 1; -- acquires access share lock > Session B: > BEGIN; > ALTER TABLE pg_class ....; -- waits for acquiring access > exclusive lock(wil fail anyway though) > Session C: > SELECT * FROM pg_class...; -- whatever query which needs > to acces pg_class will be > blocked, too bad... > I understand that B should wait for aquiring lock, but Should C wait > for? If we didn't do this, then a would-be acquirer of exclusive lock would have a very serious problem with lock starvation: it might wait forever in the face of a continuous stream of access-share lock requests. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: