Re: Shared row locking

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:36:53 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>Certainly not; indexes depend on locks, not vice versa.  You'd not be
>able to do that without introducing an infinite recursion into the
>system design.

Wouldn't you have to face the same sort of problems if you spill part of
the lock table to disk?  While you do I/O you have to hold some lock.
In either case there has to be a special class of locks that are pinned
in memory.

>  In any case nbtree is much more heavyweight than we need
>for this

Having funcionality we don't need is not a showstopper ... unless
heavyweight implies slow, which I have to admit may well be the case.

ServusManfred