http://www.slony.info/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218

Steve Singer <ssinger at ca.afilias.info> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|FIXED                       |
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED

--- Comment #7 from Steve Singer <ssinger at ca.afilias.info> 2011-06-09 12:13:21 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Does this actually solve the problem or does it only lower the chance of
> running into it?
> 
> You remember we had the discussion about LOCK TABLE with respect to snapshots
> and realized, that LOCK TABLE statements at the beginning of a transaction
> actually cause the lock to be taken out BEFORE the transaction snapshot is
> generated. However, this LOCK TABLE cannot be done from inside of a stored
> procedure because SELECTing that SP causes the snapshot to be generated before
> the LOCK TABLE statement itself.
> 
> My gut feeling is that we need slonik to do the LOCK on the sl_config_log at
> the beginning of any transaction, where it intends to call SPs that change the
> configuration.
> 
> 
> Jan

I am inclined to agree with you.  I don't think we should be taking locks in
the stored procedures, so slonik + a few parts of slon might need to do this.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.slony.info/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.