These are the commands I have run in the terminal
psql (17.0)
Type "help" for help.
postgres=# SELECT pg_advisory_lock_shared(1001); //initialising the shared
lock
pg_advisory_lock_shared
-
(1 row)
postgres=# SELECT pg_advisory_lock(1001); //exclusive lock
pg_advisory_
Thank you for the clarification. Now this explains the scenario.
Regards
Blessy Thomas
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 at 15:56, Álvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2025-Feb-11, Blessy Thomas wrote:
>
> > These are the commands I have run in the terminal
> > psql (17.0)
> > Type "help" for help.
> >
> > postgres=#
On 2025-Feb-11, Blessy Thomas wrote:
> These are the commands I have run in the terminal
> psql (17.0)
> Type "help" for help.
>
> postgres=# SELECT pg_advisory_lock_shared(1001); //initialising the shared
> lock
> pg_advisory_lock_shared
> -
>
> (1 row)
>
> postgres=#
Hello
On 2025-Feb-11, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> ISSUE : According to the above paragraph , locks should either be shared or
> exclusive. But when I tried assigning a shared lock and exclusive lock
> without unlock of the shared lock , it doesn't show a conflict. I think this
> may contradict
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/functions-admin.html
Description:
In this session of
REFERENCE :9.28.10. Advisory Lock Functions
The functions shown in Table 9.106 manage advisory locks. For details about
proper use of
