Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt
Date: 2011-11-10 19:59:20
Message-ID: 201111101959.pAAJxKl14538@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After some rather extensive rewriting, I submit the patch to improve
> foreign key locks.
>
> To recap, the point of this patch is to introduce a new lock tuple mode,
> that lets the RI code obtain a lighter lock on tuples, which doesn't
> conflict with updates that do not modify the key columns.

What kind of operations benefit from a non-key lock like this?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-11-10 20:07:02 Re: const correctness
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2011-11-10 19:57:48 Re: const correctness