| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Jeff MacDonald'" <jeff(at)pgsql(dot)com>, "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | AW: [HACKERS] Locking |
| Date: | 2000-03-02 08:54:57 |
| Message-ID: | 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C604AF7D06@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I was reading the MVCC docs and came across this statement
>
> "Postgres doesn't remember any information about
> modified rows in memory and so has no limit to the
> number of rows locked without lock escalation. "
>
> And this is how i interpreted it.
>
> you can have unlimited rows locked with out it going to a 'table
> lock'
>
> Do these two staements say the samething ?
Yes, exactly.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2000-03-02 09:03:14 | AW: [HACKERS] having and union in v7beta |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-03-02 06:48:07 | Re: [HACKERS] bitten by docs |