| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Brook Milligan <brook(at)biology(dot)nmsu(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Lock |
| Date: | 1999-12-19 07:27:56 |
| Message-ID: | 2535.945588476@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Brook Milligan <brook(at)biology(dot)nmsu(dot)edu> writes:
> Somehow there has to be a mechanism for atomically asserting locks on
> more than one table.
(scratches head reflectively...) y'know, thirty years ago there were
a bunch of smart people writing PhD theses about this type of issue.
I've got to think it's been a solved problem for a long time. Seems
like someone should go spend a long afternoon in a university library
and dig up the answer.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 1999-12-19 09:25:39 | RE: [HACKERS] NOTICE: LockRelease: locktable lookup failed, no lock |
| Previous Message | Brook Milligan | 1999-12-19 00:07:25 | Re: [HACKERS] SPI header dependencies |