Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > Easiest to do is don't worry about # of locks -:)
> > > > Let's be on this way for 6.5
> > >
> > > You mean just share-lock the whole table. I agree. It is a pretty rare
> > > situation.
> >
> > No. User may use LOCK TABLE IN SHARE MODE for this.
> > I propose SELECT FOR SHARE LOCK as alternative to
> > LOCK TABLE IN SHARE MODE and SELECT FOR UPDATE and
> > would like to share lock each row selected with
> > FOR SHARE LOCK clause in use. I don't know what's
> > real limitations of # locks, but I think that
> > a tens of locks is Ok.
>
> So you are going to shared lock every row. And if a user does a
> sequential scan of the entire table using SELECT FOR SHARE LOCK, he
> shared locks every row. Isn't he going to run out of locks?
I would like to work with this issue after 6.5 and writes
some notes about FOR SHARE LOCK limitations/problems.
Vadim
