"Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com> writes:
> I may be over my head here, but I think lock spillover is dangerous. In
> the extreme situations where this would happen, it would be a real
> performance buster. Personally, I would rather see locks escalate when
> the table gets full, or at least allow this as a configuration
> parameter.
To me, "performance buster" is better than "random, unrepeatable
deadlock failures". In any case, if we find we *can't* implement this
in a non-performance-busting way, then it would be time enough to look
at alternatives that force the user to manage the problem for us.
regards, tom lane
