From: | Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] FOR SHARE LOCK clause ? |
Date: | 1999-01-06 04:28:27 |
Message-ID: | 3692E66B.5011E04A@krs.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > Easiest to do is don't worry about # of locks -:)
> > > > Let's be on this way for 6.5
> > >
> > > You mean just share-lock the whole table. I agree. It is a pretty rare
> > > situation.
> >
> > No. User may use LOCK TABLE IN SHARE MODE for this.
> > I propose SELECT FOR SHARE LOCK as alternative to
> > LOCK TABLE IN SHARE MODE and SELECT FOR UPDATE and
> > would like to share lock each row selected with
> > FOR SHARE LOCK clause in use. I don't know what's
> > real limitations of # locks, but I think that
> > a tens of locks is Ok.
>
> So you are going to shared lock every row. And if a user does a
> sequential scan of the entire table using SELECT FOR SHARE LOCK, he
> shared locks every row. Isn't he going to run out of locks?
I would like to work with this issue after 6.5 and writes
some notes about FOR SHARE LOCK limitations/problems.
Vadim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vadim Mikheev | 1999-01-06 04:40:53 | Re: [HACKERS] FOR SHARE LOCK clause ? |
Previous Message | Vadim Mikheev | 1999-01-06 04:25:47 | Re: [HACKERS] FOR SHARE LOCK clause ?] |