Re: [HACKERS] FOR SHARE LOCK clause ?

> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 
> > > > I think lock escalation is nice.  Locking every row makes for lock
> > > > resource problems.  I would recommend locking a single row, and if a
> > > > second row needs to be locked, just escalate to lock the whole table...
> > > > if that can be done.  This would seem to be the most reasonable and
> > > > easiest to do.
> > >
> > > Easiest to do is don't worry about # of locks -:)
> > > Let's be on this way for 6.5
> > 
> > You mean just share-lock the whole table.  I agree.  It is a pretty rare
> > situation.
> 
> No. User may use LOCK TABLE IN SHARE MODE for this.
> I propose SELECT FOR SHARE LOCK as alternative to
> LOCK TABLE IN SHARE MODE and SELECT FOR UPDATE and
> would like to share lock each row selected with
> FOR SHARE LOCK clause in use. I don't know what's
> real limitations of # locks, but I think that
> a tens of locks is Ok.

So you are going to shared lock every row.  And if a user does a
sequential scan of the entire table using SELECT FOR SHARE LOCK, he
shared locks every row.  Isn't he going to run out of locks?

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026