| From: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Referential Integrity and SHARE locks |
| Date: | 2007-02-02 11:01:54 |
| Message-ID: | 1170414114.3101.81.camel@coppola.muc.ecircle.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> You say below the cut that you're not updating keys, so presumably it's
> other columns. Which leads me to something I've wondered for a while -
> why do we lock the whole row? Is it just a matter of "not optimised that
> yet" or is there a good reason why locking just some columns isn't
> practical.
For the conditions of generating the deadlock, see:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-12/msg00029.php
The reason of the occasional orphan rows is not completely clear to me,
but it must be some kind of race condition while
inserting/deleting/?updating concurrently the parent/child tables.
Cheers,
Csaba.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2007-02-02 12:04:12 | Re: Referential Integrity and SHARE locks |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2007-02-02 10:26:49 | Re: A more general approach (Re: Data archiving/warehousing idea) |