| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server: Rearrange pg_subtrans handling |
| Date: | 2004-08-24 04:59:36 |
| Message-ID: | 412ACB38.5050907@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
> Uh ... the interesting question is usually not "does this backend hold
> any row locks", it is "is this row locked by any backends". If the
> latter question is not *exceedingly* cheap to answer, at least in the
> normal case where the answer is no, you don't have a workable solution,
> because you'll be adding nontrivial overhead to every row update.
OK, what I mean is to know if a row is locked by any backend, why can't
we just put a reference count of the number of locks on that row,
instead of recording each backend separately? Wouldn't that require a
fixed amount of shared mem?
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2004-08-24 05:05:19 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server: Rearrange pg_subtrans |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-24 04:49:32 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server: Rearrange pg_subtrans handling as |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2004-08-24 05:05:19 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server: Rearrange pg_subtrans |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-24 04:49:32 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server: Rearrange pg_subtrans handling as |