"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM> writes:
>> (dunno if the locks would scale to a scenario with hundreds
>> of concurrent inserts - how many user locks max?).
> I don't see problem here - just a few bytes in shmem for
> key. Auxiliary table would keep refcounters for keys.
I think that running out of shmem *would* be a problem for such a
facility. We have a hard enough time now sizing the lock table for
system locks, even though they use fixed-size keys and the system as
a whole is designed to ensure that not too many locks will be held
simultaneously. (For example, SELECT FOR UPDATE doesn't try to use
per-tuple locks.) Earlier in this thread, someone proposed using
user locks as a substitute for SELECT FOR UPDATE. I can guarantee
you that that someone will run out of shared memory before long,
if the userlock table resides in shared memory.
regards, tom lane
