From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql-server: Rearrange pg_subtrans handling as |
Date: | 2004-08-24 03:41:53 |
Message-ID: | 20040824034153.GF27308@dcc.uchile.cl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:17:59AM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Just random speculation, but could we use a pg_subtrans-like setup to do
> row share locks?
>
> ie. Store them in a sort of table to avoid the problems with limited
> shared memory size?
Hmm ... how would you map the row number to an array index? I think it
could work if you answer the above question. The problem is doing it
for any possible table/row combination, and make it so that in a given
moment only a small space in the array is used. (If you don't do that,
there will be a lot of thrashing.)
What's needed is a four-dimension integer array:
pg_database oid
pg_class oid
BlockNumber
OffsetNumber
The value would keep how many share-lockers there are.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Cómo ponemos nuestros dedos en la arcilla del otro. Eso es la amistad; jugar
al alfarero y ver qué formas se pueden sacar del otro" (C. Halloway en
La Feria de las Tinieblas, R. Bradbury)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-08-24 04:30:16 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server: Rearrange pg_subtrans handling |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-24 03:02:01 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server: Rearrange pg_subtrans handling as |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Philip Warner | 2004-08-24 03:44:10 | Re: New warning in pg_dump |
Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2004-08-24 03:32:07 | Re: New warning in pg_dump |