Re: [Testperf-general] Re: ExclusiveLock - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: [Testperf-general] Re: ExclusiveLock
Date
Msg-id 200411181402.22608.josh@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ExclusiveLock  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [Testperf-general] Re: ExclusiveLock  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom,

> I think you are right that these reflect heap or btree-index extension
> operations.  Those do not actually take locks on the *table* however,
> but locks on a single page within it (which are completely orthogonal to
> table locks and don't conflict).  The pg_locks output leaves something
> to be desired, because you can't tell the difference between table and
> page locks.

Aside from foriegn keys, though, is there any way in which INSERT page locks 
could block other inserts?    I have another system (Lyris) where that 
appears to be happening with 32 concurrent INSERT streams.    It's possible 
that the problem is somewhere else, but I'm disturbed by the possibility.

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Test database for new installs?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: OpenBSD/Sparc status