I was thinking of adding to TODO:
* Allow shared row locks for referential integrity
but how is that different from:
* Implement dirty reads and use them in RI triggers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It may be best to have a locking manager run as a separate process.
> > That way it could store locks in ram or spill over to disk.
>
> Hmm, that might be workable. We could imagine that in place of the
> HEAP_MARKED_FOR_UPDATE status bit, we have a "this row is possibly
> locked" hint bit. Only if you see the bit set do you need to query
> the lock manager. If the answer comes back that no lock is held,
> you can clear the bit --- so no need for any painful "undo" stuff
> after a crash, and no communication overhead in the normal case.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
--
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 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
