Re: Reducing likelihood of deadlocks (was referential Integrity and SHARE locks)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Reducing likelihood of deadlocks (was referential Integrity and SHARE locks)
Date: 2007-02-13 16:38:34
Message-ID: 1124.1171384714@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com> writes:
> From an application developer's standpoint there are few options, none
> of them ideal:

How about

4) Make all the FK constraints deferred, so that they are only checked
at end of transaction. Then the locking order of transactions that only
modify C is always C1, C2, ..., P.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc Munro 2007-02-13 16:40:46 Re: Reducing likelihood of deadlocks (was referential Integrity and SHARE locks)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-02-13 16:30:17 Re: XML changes broke assert-enabled vcbuild