Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 11:25:57 +0100
From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Blessy Thomas <blessy456bthomas@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Regarding experiencing
Message-ID: <202502111025.yhnpf7xy4bqz@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJyyjtAZxFGuynAKabj7xOsy9YYMJdAU5zcLTg6Ya7AqgKcbdg@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202502111025.yhnpf7xy4bqz%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

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=# SELECT pg_advisory_lock(1001); //exclusive lock
>  pg_advisory_lock
> ------------------
> 
> (1 row)

Ah yes, there's no conflict in this case because the holder of both
locks is the same session.  You'd have to request the exclusive lock in
another psql session and you should see it block.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/