Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoY_3JXfh7_x7u+DkhE4Hb459XdsUbrMsFdS7YAbZDuY5A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 24 January 2014 08:33, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 24 January 2014 07:08, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:57 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>>> v15 to fix the above problem. >>> >> v16 attached > > v17 attached > > This version adds a GUC called ddl_exclusive_locks which allows us to > keep the 9.3 behaviour if we wish it. Some people may be surprised > that their programs don't wait in the same places they used to. We > hope that is a positive and useful behaviour, but it may not always be > so. > > I'll commit this on Thurs 30 Jan unless I hear objections. I haven't reviewed the patch, but -1 for adding a GUC. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: