Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison"

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Neil Padgett <npadgett(at)redhat(dot)com>, "pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison"
Date: 2001-07-30 04:24:14
Message-ID: 14887.996467054@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Actually, with this new code, we could go back to locking in oid order,
> which would eliminate the problem.

No it wouldn't.  If anything, locking in a *randomized* order would be
the best bet.  But I have no confidence in this approach, anyway.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-07-30 04:36:58
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL7.1 on AIX5L is running with too poor ferformance
Previous:From: mlwDate: 2001-07-30 04:01:56
Subject: Re: Re: From TODO, XML?

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2001-07-30 06:24:09
Subject: Patch to contrib/fulltextindex/fti.sql
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-07-30 03:49:37
Subject: Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison"

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group