Re: 2PC-induced lockup
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
Date: 2007-07-11T19:53:42Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >>> It's not? I agree with Tom here; this is just one of the numerous >>> things you can do to screw up your database as a superuser. Why would >>> you LOCK the pg_auth table, or any other system table for that >>> matter, in the first place? Let alone in a distributed transaction. >> >> Well, my test case arose from a real application scenario, not an >> attempt to destroy my database system. > Why does the application LOCK pg_auth? Even if there is a reason for a lock, surely it's not necessary to use AccessExclusiveLock. A lesser lock would synchronize whatever the heck it's doing without locking out readers. regards, tom lane