| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "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 19:26:41 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYOd1UO6shiVaRhobSmBu_p1RB2+QUH8mMKFb867Uzwpg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-11-13 19:43:44 | Re: Another logical decoding assertion failure |
| Previous Message | francisk | 2014-11-13 18:38:43 | array exclusion constraints |