| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nicolas Barbier <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Deadlock bug |
| Date: | 2010-08-25 14:57:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20022.1282748248@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Nicolas Barbier <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2010/8/25 Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
>> You're exactly correct and I now understand Markus' comment. Do you
>> think that exact meaning prevents my proposal from being useful?
> Not at all, because I guess that updates to non-UNIQUE columns are way
> more common that updates to UNIQUE columns.
In particular, HOT updates are known useful even though they have
that restriction and more.
It strikes me that a possibly useful simplification of the idea is a
lock type that allows HOT updates and not non-HOT ones; or more
precisely not ones that change any indexed columns --- if the row ends
up having to go off-page for lack of space, that need not concern us.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2010-08-25 15:01:03 | Re: SQLSTATE of notice PGresult |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-08-25 14:33:10 | Re: Deadlock bug |