Re: Fix FK deadlock, but no magic please
От | Stephan Szabo |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Fix FK deadlock, but no magic please |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20030116154144.Q10566-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Fix FK deadlock, but no magic please (Jon Swinth <jswinth@atomicpc.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Fix FK deadlock, but no magic please
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Jon Swinth wrote: > Now I understand what you are trying to say, but what you are describing is > normal (happens in most DBs) and rather uncommon (in my experience). General > DB design is done so reference tables end up with a lot of read locks and > rarely have a write lock. It would be cool if you could remove that > contention, but not at the expense of expected write lock behaivor. I think I may have also misunderstood which lock behavior you were worried about. In either scheme if someone does something like: Transaction 1: begin; Transaction 2: begin; Transaction 1: select for update from pk where key=1; - Gets a write lock on row with pk.key=1 [Or does an update or a delete or whatever] Transaction 2: insert into fk values (1); - Needs to wait on the write lock above That will stay true even in the dirty read scheme.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: