On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 19:54 -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Sunday 17 April 2005 19:30, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 14:04 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 06:56:01AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > > From a "people who call me" perspective. I am never asked about
> > > > inheritance. Most of the people don't even know it is there.
> > > > The requests I get are:
> > >
> > > Just wondering, does anybody asks you about the excessive locking (and
> > > deadlocking) on foreign keys? The business about being able to drop
> > > users and then find out they were still owners of something? I guess I
> > > worry about things too low-level that nobody really cares too much about.
> >
> > I know of plenty of people impacted by foreign key locking that remove
> > specific keys in production that they have in place for testing.
> >
>
> That or put calls into try/catch mechanisms "just in case" it deadlocks even
> though it wouldn't with some less restrictive locking mechanism. Or come up
> with some type of serializing scheme to ensure deadlocks can't happen. Or
Deadlocks weren't the issue, insert serialization by the FKey locks was
the issue.
> several other bad schemes.... Alvaro, there are many pints waiting for you
> from a great many postgresql users if you can eliminate this problem with the
> work you're doing on shared row locks.
Agreed.
--
