From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, sailesh(at)cs(dot)berkeley(dot)edu, Jenny - <nat_lazy(at)hotmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: this is in plain text (row level locks) |
Date: | 2003-07-31 04:16:27 |
Message-ID: | 200307310416.h6V4GRs25541@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I was thinking of adding to TODO:
* Allow shared row locks for referential integrity
but how is that different from:
* Implement dirty reads and use them in RI triggers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
> > It may be best to have a locking manager run as a separate process.
> > That way it could store locks in ram or spill over to disk.
>
> Hmm, that might be workable. We could imagine that in place of the
> HEAP_MARKED_FOR_UPDATE status bit, we have a "this row is possibly
> locked" hint bit. Only if you see the bit set do you need to query
> the lock manager. If the answer comes back that no lock is held,
> you can clear the bit --- so no need for any painful "undo" stuff
> after a crash, and no communication overhead in the normal case.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-31 04:20:03 | Re: this is in plain text (row level locks) |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-07-31 04:15:34 | Re: compile failure |