Re: RFC: listing lock status
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: RFC: listing lock status |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9676.1027049446@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: RFC: listing lock status (nconway@klamath.dyndns.org (Neil Conway)) |
Ответы |
Re: RFC: listing lock status
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
nconway@klamath.dyndns.org (Neil Conway) writes: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 03:12:53PM -0700, Joe Conway wrote: >> Maybe the function should take a boolean parameter to indicate whether >> or not to show locks on objects in pg_* schema? > I had thought about that, but it occurs to me that the DBA can > effectively choose this for himself using the relID and databaseID > returned by the SRF, in combination with pg_database.datlastsysoid. datlastsysoid is obsolete IMHO --- it was never trustworthy when one considers the possibility of OID wraparound. My opinion on this point is (a) pgxactlock locks are special and should be shown specially --- in the form of "xact a waits for xact b"; (b) locks on other system catalogs are normal locks and should NOT be discriminated against. If you have a deadlock condition, the fact that one of the elements of the lock cycle is on a system catalog isn't going to magically get you out of the deadlock; nor can you avoid waiting just because the lock you need is on a system catalog. Since AFAICS the only value of a lock status displayer is to investigate problems of one of those two forms, I can fathom no reason at all that anyone would have the slightest use for a displayer that arbitrarily omits some locks. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: