Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Shared row locking

From: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>,Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>,Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>,Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Shared row locking
Date: 2004-12-30 23:17:09
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:36:53 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>Certainly not; indexes depend on locks, not vice versa.  You'd not be
>able to do that without introducing an infinite recursion into the
>system design.

Wouldn't you have to face the same sort of problems if you spill part of
the lock table to disk?  While you do I/O you have to hold some lock.
In either case there has to be a special class of locks that are pinned
in memory.

>  In any case nbtree is much more heavyweight than we need
>for this

Having funcionality we don't need is not a showstopper ... unless
heavyweight implies slow, which I have to admit may well be the case.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2004-12-31 00:04:48
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bgwriter behavior
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-12-30 19:30:35
Subject: Re: buildfarm NetBSD/m68k tsearch regression failure

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group