Re: this is in plain text (row level locks)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: sailesh(at)cs(dot)berkeley(dot)edu
Cc: Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: 2003-07-24 22:09:53
Message-ID: 23813.1059084593@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Sailesh Krishnamurthy <sailesh(at)cs(dot)berkeley(dot)edu> writes:
> Why not have the traditional approach of a lock table in shared
> memory, growing and shrinking as appropriate,

Because we can't grow shared memory. Whatever size we get at startup is
what we're stuck with. (I suppose we could try asking the kernel for
additional segments, but there's every likelihood that that will fail.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sailesh Krishnamurthy 2003-07-24 22:11:46 Re: this is in plain text (row level locks)
Previous Message Sailesh Krishnamurthy 2003-07-24 22:01:43 Re: this is in plain text (row level locks)