Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> This is actually an issue though. Row-level shared locks would be > >> really nice to have for foreign-key handling. Right now we have to > >> use X locks for those, and that leads to deadlocking problems for > >> applications. > > > Is the plan to allow one backend to shared lock the row while others can > > read it but not modify it, or is the idea to actually allow multiple > > backends to record their shared status on the row? > > Plan? We have no plan to fix this :-(. But clearly there has to be > some way to tell which backends hold read locks on a shared-locked row, > else you can't tell if they've all dropped the lock or not.
I suppose we could allow one backend to mark the page with a shared lock for primary key purposes while others read it. Does that buy us anything? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
