From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks |
Date: | 2011-01-28 08:12:43 |
Message-ID: | 4D427A7B.8080100@cs.helsinki.fi |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/23/2011 4:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Marko Tiikkaja
> <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> wrote:
>> On 2011-01-17 9:28 AM +0200, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
>>> == Coding ==
>>> I expect documentation will come soon.
>>
>> I'm sorry about this, I have been occupied with other stuff. I'm going to
>> work on this tonight.
>
> Any update on this?
Again, my apologies for the delay :-( Things haven't been going as
planned during the last few weeks.
Here's an updated patch with proposed doc changes. I still didn't
address the issue with pg_advisory_unlock_all() releasing transaction
scoped locks, but I'm going to. Another issue I found while testing the
behaviour here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg01939.php
is that if a session holds both a transaction level and a session level
lock on the same resource, only one of them will appear in pg_locks. Is
that going to be a problem from the user's perspective? Could it be an
indication of a well-hidden bug? Based on my tests it seems to work,
but I'm not at all confident with the code.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
advisory3.patch | text/plain | 32.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-01-28 08:33:50 | Re: pg_ctl failover Re: Latches, signals, and waiting |
Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2011-01-28 08:09:50 | Re: pg_ctl failover Re: Latches, signals, and waiting |