| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion |
| Date: | 2014-11-13 19:50:18 |
| Message-ID: | 7595.1415908218@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>> If two backends both have an exclusive lock on the relation for a join
>> operation, that implies that they need to do their own synchronization,
>> because obviously the lock manager is not doing it for them.
> This doesn't make sense to me. Why would they need to synchronize
> access to a relation in order to join it?
What's more to the point: why would you take an exclusive lock just to
do a join?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-11-13 20:01:36 | Re: Segmentation fault in pg_dumpall from master down to 9.1 and other bug introduced by RLS |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-11-13 19:44:05 | Re: logical decoding - reading a user catalog table |