Re: documentation about explicit locking
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: documentation about explicit locking |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9e448f13-5641-0ff6-2d4c-b850ab77c499@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: documentation about explicit locking (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>) |
Ответы |
Re: documentation about explicit locking
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 06.07.18 04:00, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2018/07/05 23:02, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 3:09 AM, Amit Langote >> <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >>> I wonder why we mention on the following page that CREATE COLLATION >>> requires SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE lock >>> >>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/explicit-locking.html >>> >>> I know that's the lock taken on the pg_collation catalog, but do we need >>> to mention locks taken by a DDL command on the catalogs it affects? All >>> other commands mentioned on the page require to specify the table name >>> that the lock will be taken on. >> >> Yes, that looks odd. > > OK, here is a patch. > > I see that it was one of Peter E's commits that added that, so cc'd him. The reason this is mentioned is that CREATE COLLATION takes a SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE lock on pg_collation whereas similar CREATE commands only take a ROW EXCLUSIVE lock on their catalogs. (So you can only have one CREATE COLLATION running at a time. The reasons for this are explained in pg_collation.c.) I think mentioning this was requested during patch review. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: