Re: preventing deadlocks

Bruno,thanks for the answer but this was not at ALL that i asked.
Neither mind .
Note however, how polite i am .
Thanks anyway.
Evgeny

Bruno Wolff III wrote:

>On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:34:31 +0200,
> Tsirkin Evgeny <tsurkin(at)mail(dot)jct(dot)ac(dot)il> wrote:
>
>
>>I understand THAT ,I meant why int will give me more performance.
>>
>>
>
>Because if you have a bunch of processes sitting around waiting for table
>locks, the average time to process queries will be higher. If you are
>already limited by IO throughput or CPU usage this may not be a big deal,
>but in many cases it will be.
>
>
>
>>Well i DO have a lot of concurrent queries,that is the whole point.
>>
>>
>
>Then you probably want to do what people have been recommending you do.
>
>
>
>>That does not help me .What i want is :
>>select 1 from table a where whatever for update;
>>issuing this should fire a trigger that does:
>>
>>
>
>You can't trigger on select statements. So this approach won't workin any case.
>
>
>
>>select 1 from table counter where a.pkey=counter.ident or something
>>however this should only be done for select FOR UPDATE!
>>And i can't know that inside the trigger!
>>
>>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
>