Re: postgresql locks the whole table!

From: Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: postgresql locks the whole table!
Date: 2003-12-07 18:50:10
Message-ID: 3FD37662.80603@mascari.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Greg Stark wrote:
> It's not strictly necessary to have a list of all xids at all. The normal
> "shared read lock" is just "take the write lock, increment the readers
> counter, unlock" Anyone who wants to write has to wait (using, eg, a condition
> variable) until the readers count goes to 0.
>
> This gets the right semantics but without the debugging info of a list of
> lockers. Other than debugging the only advantage I see to having the list of
> lockers is for deadlock detection. Is that absolutely mandatory?

What happens if a backend is killed and never decrements its reference
count?

Mike Mascari
mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephan Szabo 2003-12-07 19:12:11 Re: postgresql locks the whole table!
Previous Message Greg Stark 2003-12-07 18:36:56 Re: postgresql locks the whole table!