On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Please provide the link to the discussion of this. I don't see a problem > here right now that can't be solved by saying
Thread: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cafcns+ox7jvenc_3i54fdq3ibmogmknc2tmevdsmvojbsxg...@mail.gmail.com Particularly those messages: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150731022857.gc11...@alap3.anarazel.de http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150731200012.gc2...@postgresql.org http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqSK-hSZG7T1tAJ_=HEYsi6P1ejgX2x5LW3LYXJ7=9c...@mail.gmail.com > Assert(locklevel==ShareUpdateExclusiveLock || > locklevel>ShareRowExclusiveLock); Yep, true as things stand now. But this would get broken if we add a new lock level between ShareRowExclusiveLock and AccessExclusiveLock that does not respect the current monotone hierarchy between those. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
