From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: FOR KEY LOCK foreign keys |
Date: | 2011-08-03 16:14:15 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob4Z3ick+LMqzuoJNdJ4h3SS5RKQMb1zwGDkg8Z0sB5Ww@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> One thing I have not addressed is Noah's idea about creating a new lock
> mode, KEY UPDATE, that would let us solve the initial problem that this
> patch set to resolve in the first place. I am not clear on exactly how
> that is to be implemented, because currently heap_update and heap_delete
> do not grab any kind of lock but instead do their own ad-hoc waiting. I
> think that might need to be reshuffled a bit, to which I haven't gotten
> yet, and is a radical enough idea that I would like it to be discussed
> by the hackers community at large before setting sail on developing it.
> In the meantime, this patch does improve the current situation quite a
> lot.
I haven't looked at the patch yet, but do you have a pointer to Noah's
proposal? And/or a description of how it differs from what you
implemented here?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-08-03 16:19:44 | Re: Transient plans versus the SPI API |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-08-03 16:10:32 | Re: Incremental checkopints |