Re: pgsql: More cleanup after failed reduced-lock-levels-for-DDL feature.
| От | Simon Riggs |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pgsql: More cleanup after failed reduced-lock-levels-for-DDL feature. |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+U5nMLqf+W8+_qm==a9V_NREJJm7NeifZDAwv=8PK2EQG2XFw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | pgsql: More cleanup after failed reduced-lock-levels-for-DDL feature. (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-committers |
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > More cleanup after failed reduced-lock-levels-for-DDL feature. > > Turns out that use of ShareUpdateExclusiveLock or ShareRowExclusiveLock > to protect DDL changes had gotten copied into several places that were > not touched by either of Simon's original patches for the feature, and > thus neither he nor I thought to revert them. (Indeed, it appears that > two of these uses were committed *after* the reversion, which just goes > to show that git merging is no panacea.) Change these places to use > AccessExclusiveLock again. If we ever manage to resurrect that feature, > we're going to have to think a bit harder about how to keep lock level > usage in sync for DDL operations that aren't within the AlterTable > infrastructure. > > Two of these bugs are only in HEAD, but one is in the 9.1 branch too. > Alvaro found one of them, I found the other two. Very cool, thanks. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: