| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: foreign key locks |
| Date: | 2012-11-16 16:17:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20121116161747.GC4454@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 01:27:26PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > https://github.com/alvherre/postgres/commit/df2847e38198e99f57e52490e1e9391ebb70d770
> >
> > (I don't think this is worth a v24 submission).
>
> Are you aware of any defects in or unanswered questions of this version that
> would stall your commit thereof?
Yeah, I am revisiting the list of XXX/FIXME comments you pointed out
previously.
And I would still like someone with EPQ understanding to review the
ExecLockRows / EvalPlanQual / heap_lock_tuple interactions.
Andres is on the verge of convincing me that we need to support
singleton FOR SHARE without multixacts due to performance concerns. It
would be useful for more people to chime in here: is FOR SHARE an
important case to cater for? I wonder if using FOR KEY SHARE (keep
performance characteristics, but would need to revise application code)
would satisfy Andres' users, for example.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-11-16 16:25:57 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-11-16 15:46:54 | Re: another idea for changing global configuration settings from SQL |