| From: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Improve concurrency of foreign key locking |
| Date: | 2013-01-31 10:56:15 |
| Message-ID: | BF7DDADB6810626A64FBE478@apophis.credativ.lan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
--On 23. Januar 2013 15:12:00 +0000 Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> This patch introduces two additional lock modes for tuples: "SELECT FOR
> KEY SHARE" and "SELECT FOR NO KEY UPDATE". These don't block each
> other, in contrast with already existing "SELECT FOR SHARE" and "SELECT
> FOR UPDATE". UPDATE commands that do not modify the values stored in
> the columns that are part of the key of the tuple now grab a SELECT FOR
> NO KEY UPDATE lock on the tuple, allowing them to proceed concurrently
> with tuple locks of the FOR KEY SHARE variety.
Out of curiousity, shouldn't we update chapter 13.3.2 in the docs to
mention the additional new lock modes, too?
--
Thanks
Bernd
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2013-01-31 14:10:03 | pgsql: Properly zero-pad the day-of-year part of the win32 build number |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2013-01-31 07:04:45 | pgsql: Add --aggregate-interval option. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2013-01-31 11:10:53 | Re: pg_dump --pretty-print-views |
| Previous Message | John R Pierce | 2013-01-31 10:15:01 | Re: Should pg_dump dump larger tables first? |