| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pasman pasmański <pasman(dot)p(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: New feature: skip row locks when table is locked. |
| Date: | 2011-04-29 19:06:27 |
| Message-ID: | 1304103987.10739.4.camel@jdavis-ux.asterdata.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 10:25 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:44:37 PM Jeff Davis wrote:
> > 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?
> > be using row locks if they already have an EXCLUSIVE lock on the table.
> > Do you have a use-case in mind?
> It could possibly reduce the disk overhead of doing foreign key checks during
> large operations somewhat as fewer buffers would get dirtied.
> At least thats the situation where I thought about it before.
Oh, that does sound like a good use case. Doesn't sound too hard to do
either, unless I'm missing something.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | fork | 2011-04-29 20:46:31 | Re: Connecting matlab with postgresql |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2011-04-29 18:44:17 | Re: Partitioning an existing table |