| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com |
| Cc: | torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query |
| Date: | 2022-02-02 08:04:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20220202.170421.204740592565249296.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Wed, 02 Feb 2022 16:49:57 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> So aren't we able to use ShareUpdateExclusive lock for that?
>
> In the attached patch, ginInsertCleanup has an extra check for such
> stronger locks not being held. At least "make check" doesn't cause
> the extra assertion to fire.
Actually, the discussion is a bit dubious. What we need really to
check is wheter such locks are not held on an index *elsewhere*.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2022-02-02 08:07:39 | obsolete reference to a SubPlan field |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2022-02-02 07:49:57 | Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query |