Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?

From: cbbrowne(at)cbbrowne(dot)com
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?
Date: 2003-04-07 19:48:27
Message-ID: 20030407194827.D0A3A56B1B@cbbrowne.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Ron Peacetree wrote:
> ...and if so, what are the current efforts focusing on?

What is it that you think of as being potentially "better" about some
would-be-alternative "transaction locking" scheme?

PostgreSQL already supports MVCC, which is commonly considered to be the
"better" scheme that eliminates a lot of need to lock data.

Furthermore, the phrase "transaction locking" doesn't seem to describe
what one would want to lock. I wouldn't want to lock a "transaction;"
I'd want to lock DATA.
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@cbbrowne.com")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/sap.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #153. "My Legions of Terror will be an
equal-opportunity employer. Conversely, when it is prophesied that no
man can defeat me, I will keep in mind the increasing number of
non-traditional gender roles." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dann Corbit 2003-04-07 19:58:27 Re: No merge sort?
Previous Message cbbrowne 2003-04-07 19:44:06 Re: Anyone know why PostgreSQL doesn't support 2 phase execution?