Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?
От | cbbrowne@cbbrowne.com |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20030407194827.D0A3A56B1B@cbbrowne.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Anyone working on better transaction locking? ("Ron Peacetree" <rjpeace@earthlink.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Ron Peacetree wrote: > ...and if so, what are the current efforts focusing on? What is it that you think of as being potentially "better" about some would-be-alternative "transaction locking" scheme? PostgreSQL already supports MVCC, which is commonly considered to be the "better" scheme that eliminates a lot of need to lock data. Furthermore, the phrase "transaction locking" doesn't seem to describe what one would want to lock. I wouldn't want to lock a "transaction;" I'd want to lock DATA. -- (concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@cbbrowne.com") http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/sap.html Rules of the Evil Overlord #153. "My Legions of Terror will be an equal-opportunity employer. Conversely, when it is prophesied that no man can defeat me, I will keep in mind the increasing number of non-traditional gender roles." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: