Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > > > Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > > > > > Ok guys. The attached patch refactor the reloptions adding a new field > > > "lockmode" in "relopt_gen" struct and a new method to determine the > > > required lock level from an option list. > > > > > > We need determine the appropriate lock level for each reloption: > > > > I don't think AccessShareLock is appropriate for any option change. You > > should be using a lock level that's self-conflicting, as a minimum > > requirement, to avoid two processes changing the value concurrently. > > What locklevel do you suggest? Maybe ShareLock?
ShareUpdateExclusive probably. ShareLock doesn't conflict with itself. > > (I would probably go as far as ensuring that the lock level specified in > > the table DoLockModesConflict() with itself in an Assert somewhere.) > > If I understood this is to check if the locklevel of the reloption list > don't conflict one each other, is it? I mean Assert(DoLockModesConflict(relopt_gen->locklevel, relopt_gen->locklevel)); -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers