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 flat)
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?


-- 
Thanks

	Bernd


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 © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group