| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Lee McKeeman <lmckeeman(at)opushealthcare(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Status of issue 4593 |
| Date: | 2009-01-05 22:58:18 |
| Message-ID: | 1231196298.22660.61.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 15:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The only way to avoid this would be to lock before the sort, which could
> have the effect of locking more rows than are returned (if you also use
> LIMIT);
How would that work in the case of an index scan sort?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-06 00:03:14 | Re: Status of issue 4593 |
| Previous Message | Lee McKeeman | 2009-01-05 21:25:38 | Re: Status of issue 4593 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2009-01-05 23:05:34 | Re: QuickLZ compression algorithm (Re: Inclusion in the PostgreSQL backend for toasting rows) |
| Previous Message | Stephen R. van den Berg | 2009-01-05 22:53:10 | Re: QuickLZ compression algorithm (Re: Inclusion in the PostgreSQL backend for toasting rows) |