Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > On 12/18/2013 11:26 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> Another possibility is to allow for two different types of >> assertions, one based on SSI and one based on locking. > > The locking version would have to pretty much lock on a table > basis (or even a whole-database basis) every time an assertion > executed, no? As far as I can see, if SSI is *not* used, there needs to be a mutually exclusive lock taken from somewhere inside the COMMIT code until the transaction is complete -- effectively serializing assertion processing for transactions which could affect a given assertion. Locking on tables would, as previously suggested, be very prone to deadlocks on the heavyweight locks. Locking on the assertions in a predictable order seems more promising, especially if there could be some way to only do that if the transaction really might have done something which could affect the truth of the assertion. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers