Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar jul 06 22:31:40 -0400 2010: > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Obviously not. We don't need to acquire an AccessExclusiveLock to > >> comment on an object - just something that will CONFLICT WITH an > >> AccessExclusiveLock. So, use the same locking rules, perhaps, but > >> take a much weaker lock, like AccessShareLock. > > > > Well, it probably needs to be a self-conflicting lock type, so that > > two COMMENTs on the same object can't run concurrently. But I agree > > AccessExclusiveLock is too strong: that implies locking out read-only > > examination of the object, which we don't want. > > Hmm... so, maybe ShareUpdateExclusiveLock?
So COMMENT ON will conflict with (auto)vacuum? Seems a bit weird ... -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
