RE: [HACKERS] RE: User locks code

2001-08-21 Thread Mikheev, Vadim
> > I don't see problem here - just a few bytes in shmem for > > key. Auxiliary table would keep refcounters for keys. > > I think that running out of shmem *would* be a problem for such a > facility. We have a hard enough time now sizing the lock table for Auxiliary table would have fixed size

Re: [HACKERS] RE: User locks code

2001-08-21 Thread Tom Lane
"Mikheev, Vadim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> (dunno if the locks would scale to a scenario with hundreds >> of concurrent inserts - how many user locks max?). > I don't see problem here - just a few bytes in shmem for > key. Auxiliary table would keep refcounters for keys. I think that runnin