Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of jue may 19 13:34:13 -0400 2011:
>> I can't see getting rid of that lock, since we'd simply have to invent
>> some other interlock for new connections vs. DROP DATABASE. However,
>> I do think that we might sometime need to convert it to a session lock
>> that's held for the life of the backend. If this feature can't cope
>> with that, that'd be a potential problem.
> The following things acquire a lock on database:
> ALTER DATABASE SET
> ALTER DATABASE OWNER
> COMMENT ON DATABASE
> So as far as features that would cause a problem if we ever decide to
> take a lock on database for the duration of the whole session, this
> isn't the first one. We'd have to invent a fix for those other things
> anyway.
Only if all the locks involved are exclusive ... which is not what
I was suggesting, and not what they are now IIRC.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
