| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FOR KEY LOCK foreign keys |
| Date: | 2011-01-23 01:46:17 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTik7nPN10As8-6=hTrPEw5aZTc0a-LAQA3HwTYPv@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
<dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a first level of review for the patch. I finally didn't get as
> much time as I hoped I would, so couldn't get familiar with the locking
> internals and machinery… as a result, I can't much comment on the code.
>
> The patch applies cleanly (patch moves one hunk all by itself) and
> compiles with no warning. It includes no docs, and I think it will be
> required to document the user visible SELECT … FOR KEY LOCK OF x new
> feature.
I feel like this should be called "KEY SHARE" rather than "KEY LOCK".
It's essentially a weaker version of the SHARE lock we have now, but
that's not clear from the name.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-23 01:47:31 | Re: pg_test_fsync problem |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-23 01:45:02 | Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers |