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

Re: FOR KEY LOCK foreign keys

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FOR KEY LOCK foreign keys
Date: 2011-08-03 16:14:15
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob4Z3ick+LMqzuoJNdJ4h3SS5RKQMb1zwGDkg8Z0sB5Ww@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> One thing I have not addressed is Noah's idea about creating a new lock
> mode, KEY UPDATE, that would let us solve the initial problem that this
> patch set to resolve in the first place.  I am not clear on exactly how
> that is to be implemented, because currently heap_update and heap_delete
> do not grab any kind of lock but instead do their own ad-hoc waiting.  I
> think that might need to be reshuffled a bit, to which I haven't gotten
> yet, and is a radical enough idea that I would like it to be discussed
> by the hackers community at large before setting sail on developing it.
> In the meantime, this patch does improve the current situation quite a
> lot.

I haven't looked at the patch yet, but do you have a pointer to Noah's
proposal?  And/or a description of how it differs from what you
implemented here?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-08-03 16:19:44
Subject: Re: Transient plans versus the SPI API
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-08-03 16:10:32
Subject: Re: Incremental checkopints

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group