| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, Vlad Arkhipov <arhipov(at)dc(dot)baikal(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Predicate locking |
| Date: | 2011-05-04 19:58:06 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTi=K-2KzHrjAqtWr72yjTC8ho_k1yg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> ... on a toy table with contrived values. How different is this
> from the often-asked question about why a query against a four-line
> table is not using the index they expect, and how can we expect it
> to scale if it doesn't? I agree that it's not unreasonable for
> someone to ask either question. If my response falls short, I'm
> game to try again.
I guess what surprises me about this a bit is that we have to
predicate-lock the whole table even if we're not actually looking at
all the rows. I can sort of see why that's necessary, but I'm a bit
fuzzy on the details, and it does seem a little unfortunate in this
instance...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2011-05-04 19:59:19 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-05-04 19:55:03 | Re: VARIANT / ANYTYPE datatype |