Re: [HACKERS] proposals for LLL, part 1

From: Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] proposals for LLL, part 1
Date: 1998-07-17 04:58:41
Message-ID: 35AEDA01.96AF99E4@krs.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> You are correct. We need to lock Proc stuctures during our scan, but we
> don't need to keep the list in shared memory. No reason to do it. Do
> we have to keep the Proc's locked while we get our table data locks. I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No! Only while we are scanning Procs...

> sure hope not. Not sure how we are going prevent someone from
> committing their transaction between our Proc scan and when we start our
> transaction. Not even sure if I should be worried about that.

We shouldn't... It doesn't matter.

Vadim

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vadim Mikheev 1998-07-17 05:00:10 Re: [HACKERS] proposals for LLL, part 1
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1998-07-17 04:53:39 Re: [HACKERS] proposals for LLL, part 1