Re: Concurrency and locks

On Wednesday 19 Feb 2003 5:00 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Mike Mascari" <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> writes:
> > If one wants to guarantee consistency in user-defined BEFORE
> > INSERT/UPDATE triggers and trigger procedures, at the moment, is
> > the only recourse SELECT FOR UPDATE? Is this the cause of
> > performance problems with the current RI implementation?
>
> Yup, and yup (or at least one cause). But it's not easy to see how
> to build a multiple-locker mechanism that scales to handle very large
> numbers of locked tuples. You can't really expect to keep the state
> data in shared memory --- but if there's >1 locker then there's no
> room for it in the on-disk tuple header, either.

Does the shared info need to be _which_ backends have locks, or could you just
get by keeping track of _how many_ backends have a lock on a particular tuple
- that'd be no bigger than an int.

Of course, if a backend crashes it'd cause problems.

--
Richard Huxton