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

From: Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 16:40:46
Message-ID: 1171384847.6326.34.camel@bloodnok.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2007-13-02 at 11:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

Excellent suggestion. Thank you.

__
Marc

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2007-02-13 16:46:21 Re: Variable length varlena headers redux
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-02-13 16:38:34 Re: Reducing likelihood of deadlocks (was referential Integrity and SHARE locks)