From: | "Jenny -" <nat_lazy(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-commiters(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | granularity of locking |
Date: | 2003-09-02 14:50:13 |
Message-ID: | BAY1-F61vX4pE2iNlg40001bc47@hotmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
In the LockTag if tupleId is represented by blkno and offnum then is blockId
mentioned below the same as blkno?
following is taken from postgresql-7.3.2/src/backend/storage/lmgr/readme:
"If we are setting a table level lock
both the blockId and tupleId (in an item pointer this is called
the position) are set to invalid, if it is a page level lock the
blockId is valid, while the tupleId is still invalid. Finally if
this is a tuple level lock (we currently never do this) then both
the blockId and tupleId are set to valid specifications. "
if tupleId is represented by blkno and offnum then is blockId mentioned
below the same as blkno?
_________________________________________________________________
Get MSN 8 and enjoy automatic e-mail virus protection.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron Johnson | 2003-09-02 15:14:45 | Re: About GPL and proprietary software |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-02 14:33:06 | Re: Commercial postgresql |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-02 15:03:24 | Planning to force reindex of hash indexes |
Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2003-09-02 14:43:30 | Re: TCP/IP with 7.4 beta2 broken? |