On 2013-12-18 13:44:15 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > > Ah, I see. You don't need to block anyone else from modifying the > > table, you just need to block anyone else from committing a > > transaction that had modified the table. So the locks shouldn't > > interfere with regular table locks. A ShareUpdateExclusiveLock on > > the assertion should do it. > > Causing serialization of transaction commit just because a single > assertion exists in the database seems too much of a hit, so looking for > optimization opportunities seems appropriate.
It would only force serialization for transactions that modify tables covered by the assert, that doesn't seem to bad. Anything covered by an assert shoulnd't be modified frequently, otherwise you'll run into major performance problems. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
