| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_locks needs a facelift |
| Date: | 2005-05-02 20:43:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20050502204327.GB29791@dcc.uchile.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 04:34:50PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Yep. Actually, the biggest part of this was figuring out what to do
> about the pg_locks view. Since that's basically decided, all that
> remains is to decide what if anything to do about the
> max_locks_per_transaction GUC variable. User locks at the very least
> are extra-transactional so this could perhaps be renamed. This could
> possibly hinge on how Alvaro's 'spill to disk' scenario plays out.
Oh, I don't plan to work on locking issues anymore for now. Basically I
wanted spill to disk only to serve the tuple locking, but since we solve
that in a different way, I pretty much abandoned that idea.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[(at)]dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>)
"Por suerte hoy explotó el califont porque si no me habría muerto
de aburrido" (Papelucho)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-05-02 20:47:23 | Re: pg_locks needs a facelift |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-05-02 20:42:51 | Re: pg_locks needs a facelift |