| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(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: | 2014-11-01 05:01:43 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMLLN=UUWBqtQ2PjB7qvwPaKxvujfD9+6x0Rev5FLtXKUg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 31 October 2014 19:36, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> It's an obscure case and its not the only solution either.
>
> I don't think that's an obscure situation at all. Do you really think
> a patch that could cause an attempt to VACUUM FULL a system catalog to
> suffer an undetected deadlock meets this community's quality
> standards? Because that's what we're talking about.
Nobody has said that allowing undetected deadlocks is acceptable, so
your other comments are void.
I've suggested *stricter* locking, which would obviously allow
deadlock detection. You recognised that by claiming that the locking I
had proposed was actually too strict, which is where the above example
came from.
Yes, I have proposed stricter locking, but as explained, the only
things this would slow down are catalog VAC FULLs, which are already a
problem.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-11-01 05:09:50 | Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-11-01 04:45:44 | Re: tracking commit timestamps |