| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: MySQL+InnoDB vs. PostgreSQL test? |
| Date: | 2004-02-03 05:52:41 |
| Message-ID: | 401F3729.9010202@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-performance |
>>Um, wrong. We don't lock rows for SELECT.
>
> Unless you meant something else? Am I not following you?
I mean row level shared read lock. eg. a lock that says, you can read
but you cannot delete.
It's what postgres needs to alleviate its foreign key trigger deadlock
problems.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff | 2004-02-03 13:52:03 | Re: [PERFORM] MySQL+InnoDB vs. PostgreSQL test? |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-02-03 05:17:15 | Re: MySQL+InnoDB vs. PostgreSQL test? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Erki Kaldjärv | 2004-02-03 07:03:05 | Re: inserting large number of rows was: Re: Increasing |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-02-03 05:17:15 | Re: MySQL+InnoDB vs. PostgreSQL test? |