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

Re: pgsql: Improve concurrency of foreign key locking

From: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Improve concurrency of foreign key locking
Date: 2013-01-31 10:56:15
Message-ID: BF7DDADB6810626A64FBE478@apophis.credativ.lan (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-committerspgsql-hackers

--On 23. Januar 2013 15:12:00 +0000 Alvaro Herrera 
<alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:

> This patch introduces two additional lock modes for tuples: "SELECT FOR
> KEY SHARE" and "SELECT FOR NO KEY UPDATE".  These don't block each
> other, in contrast with already existing "SELECT FOR SHARE" and "SELECT
> FOR UPDATE".  UPDATE commands that do not modify the values stored in
> the columns that are part of the key of the tuple now grab a SELECT FOR
> NO KEY UPDATE lock on the tuple, allowing them to proceed concurrently
> with tuple locks of the FOR KEY SHARE variety.

Out of curiousity, shouldn't we update chapter 13.3.2 in the docs to 
mention the additional new lock modes, too?



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2013-01-31 11:10:53
Subject: Re: pg_dump --pretty-print-views
Previous:From: John R PierceDate: 2013-01-31 10:15:01
Subject: Re: Should pg_dump dump larger tables first?

pgsql-committers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2013-01-31 14:10:03
Subject: pgsql: Properly zero-pad the day-of-year part of the win32 buildnumber
Previous:From: Tatsuo IshiiDate: 2013-01-31 07:04:45
Subject: pgsql: Add --aggregate-interval option.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group