| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |
| Date: | 2013-09-13 22:01:56 |
| Message-ID: | 1379109716.58834.YahooMailNeo@web162901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> we exclusive lock a heap buffer (exactly one heap buffer) while
> holding shared locks on btree index buffers. Is that really so
> different to holding an exclusive lock on a btree buffer while
> holding a shared lock on a heap buffer? Because that's what
> _bt_check_unique() does today.
Is it possible to get a deadlock doing only one of those two
things? Is it possible to avoid a deadlock doing both of them?
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-09-13 22:13:20 | Re: record identical operator |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-09-13 21:59:00 | Re: record identical operator |