| 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: | 2004-12-30 00:57:15 |
| Message-ID: | 19803.1104368235@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:
> I don't see too much of a difference between #1 (an on-disk structure
> buffered in shared memory) and #2 (a shared memory structure spilling
> to disk).
If you stand back that far, maybe you can't see a difference ;-) ...
but the proposal on the table was for an extremely special-purpose
on-disk structure. I'd prefer to see first if we can solve a more
general problem, namely the fixed size of the existing lock table.
It's certainly possible that that idea won't work out, but if it can be
done for a similar time investment as the special-purpose log would
take, it'd be a win.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2004-12-30 09:39:50 | Re: ECPG CONNECT TO DEFAULT segfault |
| Previous Message | Manfred Koizar | 2004-12-30 00:15:45 | Re: Bgwriter behavior |