Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> Now this can't be applied right away because it's easy to run "out of
> memory" (shared memory for the lock table). Say, a delete or update
> that touches 10000 tuples does not work. I'm currently working on a
> proposal to allow the lock table to spill to disk ...
Is that true even if I'm updating/deleting 1,000 tuples that all reference the
same foreign key? It seems like that should only need a single lock per
(sub)transaction_id per referenced foreign key.
How is this handled currently? Is your patch any worse than the current
behaviour?
--
greg