Re: Exposing the lock manager's WaitForLockers() to SQL
От | Will Mortensen |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Exposing the lock manager's WaitForLockers() to SQL |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAMpnoC61bX3TbX8=-vPspBxxHU6w0Zjo+hghz5H8xhg-vS=b=g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Exposing the lock manager's WaitForLockers() to SQL (Will Mortensen <will@extrahop.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 12:01 AM Will Mortensen <will@extrahop.com> wrote: > FWIW, another solution might be to directly expose the functions that > WaitForLockers() calls, namely GetLockConflicts() (generalized to > GetLockers() in the first patch) to identify the transactions holding > the locks, and VirtualXactLock() to wait for each transaction to > commit or roll back. That would be more complicated for the client but > could be more broadly useful. I could investigate that further if it > seems preferable. We will look further into this. Since the main advantage over polling the existing pg_locks view would be efficiency, we will try to provide more quantitative evidence/analysis of that. That will probably want to be a new thread and CF entry, so I'm withdrawing this one. Thanks again for all the replies, and to Robert for your off-list feedback and letting me bend your ear in Vancouver. :-)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: