Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison"

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Neil Padgett <npadgett(at)redhat(dot)com>, "pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison"
Date: 2001-07-30 04:24:14
Message-ID: 14887.996467054@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Actually, with this new code, we could go back to locking in oid order,
> which would eliminate the problem.

No it wouldn't. If anything, locking in a *randomized* order would be
the best bet. But I have no confidence in this approach, anyway.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-07-30 04:36:58 Re: PostgreSQL7.1 on AIX5L is running with too poor ferformance
Previous Message mlw 2001-07-30 04:01:56 Re: Re: From TODO, XML?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2001-07-30 06:24:09 Patch to contrib/fulltextindex/fti.sql
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-07-30 03:49:37 Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison"