From: | cbbrowne(at)cbbrowne(dot)com |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking? |
Date: | 2003-04-07 19:48:27 |
Message-ID: | 20030407194827.D0A3A56B1B@cbbrowne.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ron Peacetree wrote:
> ...and if so, what are the current efforts focusing on?
What is it that you think of as being potentially "better" about some
would-be-alternative "transaction locking" scheme?
PostgreSQL already supports MVCC, which is commonly considered to be the
"better" scheme that eliminates a lot of need to lock data.
Furthermore, the phrase "transaction locking" doesn't seem to describe
what one would want to lock. I wouldn't want to lock a "transaction;"
I'd want to lock DATA.
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@cbbrowne.com")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/sap.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #153. "My Legions of Terror will be an
equal-opportunity employer. Conversely, when it is prophesied that no
man can defeat me, I will keep in mind the increasing number of
non-traditional gender roles." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2003-04-07 19:58:27 | Re: No merge sort? |
Previous Message | cbbrowne | 2003-04-07 19:44:06 | Re: Anyone know why PostgreSQL doesn't support 2 phase execution? |