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

Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt
Date: 2012-02-23 14:15:45
Message-ID: CA+U5nM+tT=yR3KgWCksLPFpaaBjEPP5Ha_e_9nOgUpaLMr=Sgg@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:

> Making pg_multixact persistent across clean shutdowns is no bridge to cross
> lightly, since it means committing to an on-disk format for an indefinite
> period.  We should do it; the benefits of this patch justify it, and I haven't
> identified a way to avoid it without incurring worse problems.

I can't actually see anything in the patch that explains why this is
required. (That is something we should reject more patches on, since
it creates a higher maintenance burden).

Can someone explain? We might think of a way to avoid that.

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-02-23 14:21:39
Subject: Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt
Previous:From: Jeroen VermeulenDate: 2012-02-23 13:08:28
Subject: Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt

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