| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] MySQL+InnoDB vs. PostgreSQL test? |
| Date: | 2004-02-03 04:08:42 |
| Message-ID: | 11250.1075781322@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-performance |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> Hey at least I noticed that InnoDB has one essential feature we don't:
>> SELECT ... IN SHARE MODE;
>>
>> Which does a shared lock on a row as opposed to a write lock, hence
>> avoiding nasty foreign key deadlocks...
> Um, wrong. We don't lock rows for SELECT.
No, but Chris is correct that we could do with having some kind of
shared lock facility at the row level.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-02-03 04:30:43 | Re: [PERFORM] MySQL+InnoDB vs. PostgreSQL test? |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-02-03 03:49:49 | Only SEVEN DAYS Until OSCON Deadline! |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-02-03 04:30:43 | Re: [PERFORM] MySQL+InnoDB vs. PostgreSQL test? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-03 04:07:05 | Re: COPY from question |