| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | vadim(at)krs(dot)ru (Vadim Mikheev) |
| Cc: | lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] FOR SHARE LOCK clause ? |
| Date: | 1999-01-06 03:50:36 |
| Message-ID: | 199901060350.WAA21487@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > I think lock escalation is nice. Locking every row makes for lock
> > resource problems. I would recommend locking a single row, and if a
> > second row needs to be locked, just escalate to lock the whole table...
> > if that can be done. This would seem to be the most reasonable and
> > easiest to do.
>
> Easiest to do is don't worry about # of locks -:)
> Let's be on this way for 6.5
You mean just share-lock the whole table. I agree. It is a pretty rare
situation.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vadim Mikheev | 1999-01-06 04:16:10 | Re: [HACKERS] FOR SHARE LOCK clause ? |
| Previous Message | Vadim Mikheev | 1999-01-06 03:47:47 | Re: [HACKERS] FOR SHARE LOCK clause ? |