On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 07:29 +0200, pasman pasmański wrote:
> Hi. Yesterday i have an idea, that sometimes row locks may be skipped,
> when table is already locked with LOCK command. It may to reduce an
> overhead from row locks.
> What do you think about it?
The table-level lock mode would need to be high enough to conflict with
SELECT FOR UPDATE to prevent concurrent SELECT FOR UPDATEs from
happening (or a SELECT FOR UPDATE and SELECT FOR SHARE happening
It looks like you'd need either EXCLUSIVE or ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock mode
as the table-level lock in order to skip the row-level lock.
So, I think your optimization would work (at least I can't think of
anything wrong with it), so long as the table-level lock is at least as
strong as EXCLUSIVE. Seems fairly minor though -- most people would not
be using row locks if they already have an EXCLUSIVE lock on the table.
Do you have a use-case in mind?
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Basil Bourque||Date: 2011-04-28 22:27:04|
|Subject: Re: SSDs with Postgresql?|
|Previous:||From: Karsten Hilbert||Date: 2011-04-28 21:07:42|
|Subject: Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys|