| 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 04:49:55 |
| Message-ID: | 200307310449.h6V4nt612651@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > 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
>
> It'd be a completely different approach to solving the FK locking
> problem. I wouldn't think we'd do both.
>
> Personally I'd feel more comfortable with a shared-lock approach, if we
> could work out the scalability issues. Dirty reads seem ... well ...
> dirty.
TODO updated:
* Implement dirty reads or shared locks and use them in RI
triggers
--
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 | Bruce Momjian | 2003-07-31 04:50:48 | Re: autocommit in 7.4 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-31 04:41:13 | Re: autocommit in 7.4 |