Re: Reducing overhead of frequent table locks

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alexey Klyukin <alexk(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Reducing overhead of frequent table locks
Date: 2011-05-14 14:01:01
Message-ID: BANLkTinCYnmzzH3WbtOdEc4NG-RKnyGOzg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> Incidentally, I used the term "local lock" because I assumed fast-path locks
> would still go through the lock manager far enough to populate the local lock
> table.  But there may be no reason to do so.

Oh, good point. I think we probably WOULD need to update the local
lock lock hash table.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-05-14 14:18:42 Re: SSI-related code drift between index_getnext() and heap_hot_search_buffer()
Previous Message Brar Piening 2011-05-14 05:07:47 Re: Visual Studio 2010/Windows SDK 7.1 support