Re: Shared row locking - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Shared row locking
Date
Msg-id 1399.1104465605@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Shared row locking  (Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>)
List pgsql-hackers
Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at> writes:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:36:53 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Certainly not; indexes depend on locks, not vice versa.  You'd not be
>> able to do that without introducing an infinite recursion into the
>> system design.

> Wouldn't you have to face the same sort of problems if you spill part of
> the lock table to disk?  While you do I/O you have to hold some lock.

See LWLocks ... or spinlocks underneath those.  But (some) operations on
tables and indexes make use of heavyweight locks.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Sergey Anpilov
Date:
Subject: hardcoded decimal point '.'
Next
From: lsunley@mb.sympatico.ca
Date:
Subject: Re: RC3 in ... ~12 hours ...