| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
| Cc: | simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Shared row locking |
| Date: | 2004-12-31 04:00:05 |
| Message-ID: | 1399.1104465605@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> writes:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:36:53 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Certainly not; indexes depend on locks, not vice versa. You'd not be
>> able to do that without introducing an infinite recursion into the
>> system design.
> Wouldn't you have to face the same sort of problems if you spill part of
> the lock table to disk? While you do I/O you have to hold some lock.
See LWLocks ... or spinlocks underneath those. But (some) operations on
tables and indexes make use of heavyweight locks.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | lsunley | 2004-12-31 04:46:11 | Re: RC3 in ... ~12 hours ... |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-12-31 01:51:42 | Re: rc1 packaged ... |